Greetings,
The LLVM project has been providing a C++ ABI for a while [1]. A naive user
like I'm would presume Fedora easily ships with that, as the saying goes:
“Fedora is a developer-friendly distro.” Unfortunately, that isn't the case for
this instance and if one is using clang++, they have t
On 02/15/2017 08:12 AM, E.N. virgo wrote:
Greetings,
The LLVM project has been providing a C++ ABI for a while [1]. A naive user
like I'm would presume Fedora easily ships with that, as the saying goes:
“Fedora is a developer-friendly distro.” Unfortunately, that isn't the case for
this insta
> I'm not sure if I follow. Supporting multiple C++ ABIs would make
> things more complicated for developers because they now have to figure
> out which ABI their project needs and if all the libraries they want to
On 15.02.2017 09:48, E.N. virgo wrote:
>> I'm not sure if I follow. Supporting multiple C++ ABIs would make
>> things more complicated for developers because they now have to figure
>> out which ABI their project needs and if all the libraries they want to
>
>> Alas, clang++ now needs to link against the GCC ABI to successfully compile.
> what actual problem is caused by that?
Please read instead “Alas, clang++ currently needs to link against the GCC ABI
to successfully compile.”
The problem is that one might want to use libstdc++ (GCC) and libc++ (L
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 5:21 AM, E.N. virgo wrote:
>>> Alas, clang++ now needs to link against the GCC ABI to successfully compile.
>> what actual problem is caused by that?
> Please read instead “Alas, clang++ currently needs to link against the GCC
> ABI to successfully compile.”
> The problem
On 15/02/17 10:21 -, E.N. virgo wrote:
Alas, clang++ now needs to link against the GCC ABI to successfully compile.
what actual problem is caused by that?
Please read instead “Alas, clang++ currently needs to link against the GCC ABI
to successfully compile.”
The problem is that one might
> I'll take on the review,
Thank you so much for stepping in, this is mostly appreciated.
> but you really should consider becoming
> involved in Fedora as a packager, as any packager can review another
> packagers packages proposed for inclusion into Fedora.
I am a slow learner, but there is some
> So what? Why is that a problem?
> Does the libc++abi have better performance for exception handling?
> Smaller footprint for RTTI?
> More new features, such as C++17's std::uncaight_exceptions()?
> Just because there's a different low-level C++ runtime library
> available doesn't mean that using
On 15/02/17 13:48 -, E.N. virgo wrote:
So what? Why is that a problem?
Does the libc++abi have better performance for exception handling?
Smaller footprint for RTTI?
More new features, such as C++17's std::uncaight_exceptions()?
Just because there's a different low-level C++ runtime library
a
On 02/15/2017 11:21 AM, E.N. virgo wrote:
Please read instead “Alas, clang++ currently needs to link against the GCC ABI
to successfully compile.”
The problem is that one might want to use libstdc++ (GCC) and libc++ (LLVM)
along with GCC ABI and LLVM ABI, respectively. Fedora currently enables
11 matches
Mail list logo
