Garrett D'Amore wrote: > I don't see Gnu C++ mentioned explicitly, It mentions C++ ABI - something that Studio has and g++ does not. From an ARC perspective, that is all that really matters.
Note the dates on the document - 1993-ish. One reason it is not on OS.o is that it needs updating, which is not a trivial job. > Right now, it doesn't seem like any of our binary compatibility > guarantees apply to any dynamically linked C++ code, Rather, dynamically linked C++ libraries that are NOT ABI Compliant. Studio C++ does generate ABI Compliant code, g++ does not. > and this case (as > proposed) proposes to set new precedent here. What would that be? -John
