> -----Original Message----- > From: David Abrahams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > "David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Well, I want to at least give the VC++ guys a few days to see if > > they say anything. I posted a question on a M$ newsgroup. I > > think I did the first time around, too, and they didn't. It would be > > really cool if, say, Jason Shirk offered some insight, or at least > > knocked some skulls so we got *some* kind of answer, even if > > it's "there's no way in heck we will give out that kind of > > information". >
If you aren't getting reasonably prompt responses to questions like this on MS newsgroups, send me a private email and I'll definitely follow up. As a team, VC++ is significantly more responsive to NG posts now, but some still slip through the cracks. > What question are you asking? I think all NDAs on the vc7.1 betas are > expired, so I can just run a test... > > However, you obviously missed my point: there _is_ no way in heck > they're going to change the object layout, thus making vc7.1 object > code incompatible with vc7 object code. Objects with multiple empty > bases have to have the same size in both versions and their members > have to live at the same offsets. > > BTW, VC++ is not the only kid on the block, and the same argument > applies to all the other players. > As usual, you are absolutely correct. Backwards compatibility in our object model is critical. I seriously doubt we'll ever do the ZBO by default. I do plan on implementing it in the next few months, and it will definitely be under a switch. I can't possibly predict when anyone outside MS will see such a compiler though, sorry. -- Jason Shirk VC++ Compiler Team _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
