Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 19:01:30 +0000
> That vote appears to have assumed an ABI breaking replacement of
std::thread::native_handle_type etc.
If I recall correctly the concern was about any potential new handle like type added in the future which would be ABI breaking for anyone using the proposed union; not that the proposed union itself would be an ABI break.
The discussion with std::thread was Bill explaining to the room that thread’s native_handle_type might not exist, hence the subsequent vote saying that we need to require that fstream’s equivalent exist; that we can’t use the same wording from thread.
> Under my proposal, native handle types can be invalid i.e. empty.
Right, the room wanted to make sure at a minimum that happened, that an implementation couldn’t just not provide the type at all.
Billy3
________________________________
From: Liaison <liaison-bounces_at_[hidden]> on behalf of Niall Douglas via Liaison <liaison_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 3:29:50 AM
To: liaison_at_[hidden] <liaison_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] Fwd: native_handle_type
On 19/08/2019 19:04, Billy O'Neal (VC LIBS) via Liaison wrote:
> LEWGi looked at this in Cologne and said that they don’t want it, so I’m
> not sure it’s appropriate to bug WG14 at this time:
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.edg.com%2Fbin%2Fview%2FWg21cologne2019%2FP1759&data=02%7C01%7Cbion%40microsoft.com%7C1480b43ba8854651860b08d725595d8e%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637018938068834179&sdata=y530%2FnBgxZpP9pCzpr0n0Adejq0gLDyvb3Z1RZIzSao%3D&reserved=0
That vote appears to have assumed an ABI breaking replacement of
std::thread::native_handle_type etc.
> Note also that the *existence* of such members is implementation
> defined, so an implementation can define that they don’t exist.
Under my proposal, native handle types can be invalid i.e. empty.
Niall
_______________________________________________
Liaison mailing list
Liaison_at_[hidden]
Subscription: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.isocpp.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fliaison&data=02%7C01%7Cbion%40microsoft.com%7C1480b43ba8854651860b08d725595d8e%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637018938068834179&sdata=n4P0bOV0fgN13RzGHJyIiOJjNFVGTfGzApD8CSK8Z7o%3D&reserved=0
Link to this post: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.isocpp.org%2Fliaison%2F2019%2F08%2F0040.php&data=02%7C01%7Cbion%40microsoft.com%7C1480b43ba8854651860b08d725595d8e%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637018938068834179&sdata=auWCqct7zVdqA72XFMvtzs4hGMfyIHdjP7RGogQ59Hs%3D&reserved=0
std::thread::native_handle_type etc.
If I recall correctly the concern was about any potential new handle like type added in the future which would be ABI breaking for anyone using the proposed union; not that the proposed union itself would be an ABI break.
The discussion with std::thread was Bill explaining to the room that thread’s native_handle_type might not exist, hence the subsequent vote saying that we need to require that fstream’s equivalent exist; that we can’t use the same wording from thread.
> Under my proposal, native handle types can be invalid i.e. empty.
Right, the room wanted to make sure at a minimum that happened, that an implementation couldn’t just not provide the type at all.
Billy3
________________________________
From: Liaison <liaison-bounces_at_[hidden]> on behalf of Niall Douglas via Liaison <liaison_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 3:29:50 AM
To: liaison_at_[hidden] <liaison_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] Fwd: native_handle_type
On 19/08/2019 19:04, Billy O'Neal (VC LIBS) via Liaison wrote:
> LEWGi looked at this in Cologne and said that they don’t want it, so I’m
> not sure it’s appropriate to bug WG14 at this time:
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.edg.com%2Fbin%2Fview%2FWg21cologne2019%2FP1759&data=02%7C01%7Cbion%40microsoft.com%7C1480b43ba8854651860b08d725595d8e%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637018938068834179&sdata=y530%2FnBgxZpP9pCzpr0n0Adejq0gLDyvb3Z1RZIzSao%3D&reserved=0
That vote appears to have assumed an ABI breaking replacement of
std::thread::native_handle_type etc.
> Note also that the *existence* of such members is implementation
> defined, so an implementation can define that they don’t exist.
Under my proposal, native handle types can be invalid i.e. empty.
Niall
_______________________________________________
Liaison mailing list
Liaison_at_[hidden]
Subscription: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.isocpp.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fliaison&data=02%7C01%7Cbion%40microsoft.com%7C1480b43ba8854651860b08d725595d8e%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637018938068834179&sdata=n4P0bOV0fgN13RzGHJyIiOJjNFVGTfGzApD8CSK8Z7o%3D&reserved=0
Link to this post: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.isocpp.org%2Fliaison%2F2019%2F08%2F0040.php&data=02%7C01%7Cbion%40microsoft.com%7C1480b43ba8854651860b08d725595d8e%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637018938068834179&sdata=auWCqct7zVdqA72XFMvtzs4hGMfyIHdjP7RGogQ59Hs%3D&reserved=0
Received on 2019-08-20 14:03:33