On Oct 11, 2013, at 9:07 AM, Bradley Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Bob, > > Since I believe it was you who objected somewhat to this last time around, > do you have any opinion on this? Thanks. > > Regards, > Bradley Smith So it hasn’t even been proposed for GCC yet? Why not? It seems unlikely but if there’s a chance that the GCC community may object to an incompatible ABI break like this, then wouldn’t it be better to wait? > >>> On 2 October 2013 16:09, Bradley Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> All poly types should be of unsigned type, >>> >>> I proposed this back in January, and I think we reached the >> conclusion >>> that this change should be coordinated with GCC since it's >> potentially >>> ABI-breaking. >>> >>> Do you know if there's been any progress on the GCC side? I think >> they >>> (Richard Earnshaw & Tejas) were intending to wait until 4.8.0 had >> been >>> released before proposing the change there. >> >> Unfortunately not much it seems, it's still very much on their TODO >> list >> for 4.8 so will happen at some point, we're just not sure exactly when. >> Given this is now specified in the ACLE as unsigned so has to change in >> GCC, >> it might be nice for clang to take the lead on this one rather than >> waiting >> for GCC. >> >> Also as you stated in your previous thread, which I just found, it's >> extraordinarily unlikely that many people if anybody will actually be >> affected >> by this change differing across clang and GCC until GCC changes it. > > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
