On Sunday 13 April 2014 23:15:30 Nicolás Alvarez wrote:
2014-04-13 22:36 GMT-03:00 Michael Pyne mp...@kde.org:
Hi all,
In the past couple of days our Binary Compatibility in C++ TechBase page
[1] was posted to Reddit [2].
That post received a response [3] which indicated that we're
On Mon, April 14, 2014 18:28:14 Ian Monroe wrote:
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Michael Pyne mp...@kde.org wrote:
If it's true, do we want
to adopt a constraint on our handling of virtual functions in leaf classes
based on this?
IMO we shouldn't worry about ABI on Windows. And not
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Michael Pyne mp...@kde.org wrote:
If it's true, do we want
to adopt a constraint on our handling of virtual functions in leaf classes
based on this?
IMO we shouldn't worry about ABI on Windows. And not because meh
Windows, but since Microsoft breaks C++ ABI
Hi all,
In the past couple of days our Binary Compatibility in C++ TechBase page [1]
was posted to Reddit [2].
That post received a response [3] which indicated that we're actually missed a
potential source of binary incompatibility with virtual functions on Windows
with MSVC.
Specifically,
2014-04-13 22:36 GMT-03:00 Michael Pyne mp...@kde.org:
Hi all,
In the past couple of days our Binary Compatibility in C++ TechBase page [1]
was posted to Reddit [2].
That post received a response [3] which indicated that we're actually missed a
potential source of binary incompatibility
