On Dec 17, 2013, at 10:55 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:38 PM, David Vandevoorde <dav...@edg.com> wrote: >> On Dec 17, 2013, at 2:57 PM, John McCall <rjmcc...@apple.com> wrote: >> >>> On Dec 17, 2013, at 11:12 AM, David Vandevoorde <dav...@edg.com> wrote: >>>> On Dec 16, 2013, at 8:33 PM, John McCall <rjmcc...@apple.com> wrote: >>>>> On Dec 16, 2013, at 5:10 PM, Richard Smith <richardsm...@google.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Consider: >>>>> >>>>> Remind me why it’s impossible to go back to the committee and repeatedly >>>>> weaken any remaining guarantees about string literal addresses until none >>>>> of this is important? >>>> >>>> I don't know if it's impossible or not, but I suspect it would be >>>> controversial. (I, at least, would be opposed.) >>> >>> Really? You feel that having really strong guarantees about the address of >>> a string literal is the right thing to do? Like, it’s worth significantly >>> increasing build times, code size, and launch times over? >> >> Yes. I think it's worth a lot to make adding "inline" to a function >> definition have minimal impact on its semantics. > > Amen. As has been pointed out (here by me, and on the WG21 reflector by Richard Smith), string literals are not guaranteed to have the same address in multiple calls each time they are evaluated in non-inline contexts, so eliminating the guarantee would actually make inline functions more like other functions. John. > > -- Gaby > _______________________________________________ > cxx-abi-dev mailing list > cxx-abi-dev@codesourcery.com > http://sourcerytools.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cxx-abi-dev _______________________________________________ cxx-abi-dev mailing list cxx-abi-dev@codesourcery.com http://sourcerytools.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cxx-abi-dev
