On terça-feira, 14 de março de 2017 09:01:25 PDT Ville Voutilainen wrote: > Ahem, it's not like there weren't qualms about it, but doing it for > std::string and std::list > was eventually necessary. The libstdc++ developers (including myself) > spend fair amounts > of time and energy trying to avoid abi breakage, including abi > breakage in downstream libraries.
I know, and we're grateful for 7 years of no breakage. It was good while it lasted. But then it happened, as we all knew it would. And then it happened again, in a separate release, instead of everything in one release. The cxxabi people also keep a document about a v2 of the ABI itself, so that will happen some day. > > What we have to ask ourselves is whether we want to say that is not our > > problem. For example, the std::string breakage caused any application or > > library that used it in its API to need to be recompiled. Besides Qt, > > there > > aren't many libraries that avoid it. So if the underlying C++ Standard > > Library breaks ABI, should we try to work around it? Or should we punt > > the problem to the user? > > I don't know. What do our users want? How big a problem would it be for > them? Right. See also the libc++/libstdc++ mix, which Linux distributions have not, after years of shipping libc++, done properly. So it seems like mixnig is not a desired use-case. Given that, I'm beginning to think that we should change our policy. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
