Jason Merrill wrote: > I think that a linear progression is sufficient, but I want an > additional point between 2 and 3 since 2 is the current default and 3 > already has meaning. Thus the 2.1 suggestion.
But, there's no longer a total ordering on ABIs; 3 isn't "bigger than" 2.1 anymore. (Presumably 4 would contain both the change in 3 and the change in 2.1, so the ordering becomes sensible from that point forward again.) >> Do we have another libstdc++ ABI change coming? I'd suggest doing this >> as -fabi-version=4, and making that the default at that point. > > We do; once C++0x is finalized we will need to switch to non-refcounted > strings and support constant time list.size(). But I believe the plan > is to manage that transition with namespace versioning so that old and > new code can continue to coexist as long as they aren't actually trying > to share affected data structures. So, do you consider ABIv3 there only as a theoretical conformance option? In other words, not something we're going to make the default in any forseeable future? (Those aren't meant to be rhetorical questions -- I'm just asking.) Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery m...@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713
