This discussion started getting into an interesting question: ABI standardization for portability by language. It makes sense to have ABI standardization for portability of objects across environments. At the same time it does mean that everyone follows the exact same recipe for low level implementation details but there may be unnecessarily restrictive at times.
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.scie...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:55 AM, Dave Love <dave.l...@manchester.ac.uk> > wrote: > >> Jeff Hammond <jeff.scie...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > Please separate C and C++ here. C has a standard ABI. C++ doesn't. >> > >> > Jeff >> >> [For some value of "standard".] I've said the same about C++, but the >> current GCC manual says its C++ ABI is "industry standard", and at least >> Intel document compatibility with recent GCC on GNU/Linux. It's >> standard enough to have changed for C++11 (?), with resulting grief in >> package repos, for instance. >> > > I may have used imprecise language. As a matter of practice, I switch C > compilers all the time without recompiling MPI and life is good. Switching > between Clang with libc++ and GCC with libstd++ does not produce happiness. > > Jeff > > -- > Jeff Hammond > jeff.scie...@gmail.com > http://jeffhammond.github.io/ > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > users@lists.open-mpi.org > https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/users >
_______________________________________________ users mailing list users@lists.open-mpi.org https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/users
