On 3/8/20 5:51 PM, Corentin via Modules wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2020, 22:01 Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash via Ext
> <ext_at_[hidden] <mailto:ext_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>
> Do we have any ABI stability concerns regarding modularizing the
> standard library? Certainly for strong module ownership
> implementations, this is a concern, but for weak module ownership
> implementations it may be a concern too, because the mangling of
> internal implementation details with module linkage would change.
>
> Can implementations overcome this with special hacks for the
> standard library that preserve the old mangled names?
>
>
>
> My understanding is that implementations that care about ABI will have
> to put implementation details in the global module fragment.
>
> I have no idea about what the strong ownership model can do to
> solve this problem.
>
> I question the benefits of both the weak model and the solution of
> puting everything in the global module fragment as neither do anything
> for odr.

This is not correct.

> _______________________________________________
> Ext mailing list
> Ext_at_[hidden] <mailto:Ext_at_[hidden]>
> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/ext
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/ext/2020/03/12936.php
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Modules mailing list
> Modules_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/modules
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/modules/2020/03/0807.php
>

-- 
Nathan Sidwell