On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Michael Matz <m...@suse.de> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 4 Jul 2012, Richard Guenther wrote: > >> > [... mangling change ...] >> >> That would not address the issue of interoperability of a C++03 library >> with a C++11 program or vice versa if they are using any of the changed >> interfaces for interoperability. Passing pointers to such objects still >> would work and break unnoticed. > > But it's the best we can possibly do _if_ we want to conform to c++11 in > the v6 ABI. IMHO we want to, so we have to at least make 98/11 code > coexist in the same process image, which means mangling changes. That the > code can't interoperate is understood. > > It will by the way not break unnoticed: interfaces using the problematic > types would be mangled differently, and hence c++98 code would silently be > resolved to a c++11 variant expecting a different layout.
Hmm, ok. I can see people wanting to use C++11 as implementation language but interfacing with C++98, thus have a way to use the C++98 std::list from C++11 code. Btw, why use a bitmask? Isn't it enough to have a single number, viewed as an ABI suffix? Richard. > > Ciao, > Michael.
