On 2 July 2012 17:43, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 07/02/2012 10:26 AM, Michael Meeks wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 15:14 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: >>> >>> While PR53646 claims that c++98 and c++11 should be ABI >>> compatible (modulo bugs), the addition of the _M_size member >>> to std::_List_base::_List_impl makes libraries using >>> std::list in headers incompatible >> >> >> This is pretty nasty for LibreOffice (and no doubt others). We >> can, and >> often do depend on rather a number of system C++ libraries and at a very >> minimum, having no simple way to detect which C++ ABI we have to build >> against 'old' vs. 'new' - is profoundly unpleasant. >> >> Is there no chance of having a bug fix that is a revision of the >> (unintended?) ABI breakage in this compiler series ? > > That's the direction I'd prefer to see (reversion until we're ready to make > the wholesale ABI changes). Not sure what the libstdc++ maintainers are > thinking right now.
I'm wondering why the libstdc++ list was taken out of the CC list ;-) I don't know what the others think but rather than just reverting it I'd like to see inline namespaces used so that in C++11 mode std::list refers to (for example) std::__2011::list, which has the additional member. That wouldn't link to C++03's std::list.
