Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 22:24:19 +0000
* The existence of a weak model also tend to show that wg21 wants to prioritize abi stability over reliability
That is incorrect. You weren’t there when we decided on that one (2015).
From: Ext <ext-bounces_at_[hidden]ocpp.org> On Behalf Of Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash via Ext
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 4:34 AM
To: Corentin <corentin.jabot_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash <brycelelbach_at_[hidden]>; Ben Boeckel via Modules <modules_at_[hidden]>; ISO C++ Tooling Study Group <sg15_at_[hidden]>; C++ Library Evolution Working Group <lib-ext_at_[hidden]>; Nathan Sidwell <nathan_at_[hidden]>; Evolution Working Group mailing list <ext_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [isocpp-ext] [isocpp-modules] Modularization of the standard library and ABI stability
No, it just reflects the reality of the platforms. Let's not try to read the tea leaves to scry an intent when there wasn't one.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020, 04:29 Corentin <corentin.jabot_at_[hidden]<mailto:corentin.jabot_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 12:13, Nathan Sidwell via Modules <modules_at_[hidden]<mailto:modules_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
On 3/8/20 5:01 PM, Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash via Ext 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?
Some pushed for a breaking ABI change in Prague. This might be their
opportunity!
In Prague, the ABI breaking of modularization were known, I can't recall if they were mentioned
The existence of a weak model also tend to show that wg21 wants to prioritize abi stability over reliability
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
_______________________________________________
Modules mailing list
Modules_at_lists.isocpp.org<mailto:Modules_at_[hidden]>
Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/modules<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.isocpp.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fmodules&data=02%7C01%7Cgdr%40microsoft.com%7C66a25b8383ae47b057a308d7c41dc906%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637193504512275685&sdata=u%2F9n36FJhnnKEeAPrH%2FmLxmA7PTc%2FDSr3W%2FxqWaN9D0%3D&reserved=0>
Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/modules/2020/03/0823.php<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.isocpp.org%2Fmodules%2F2020%2F03%2F0823.php&data=02%7C01%7Cgdr%40microsoft.com%7C66a25b8383ae47b057a308d7c41dc906%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637193504512285653&sdata=eeM1wTezEjbdjAkJVb50rHGxrRAJFfoEdg4VfB60Dls%3D&reserved=0>
That is incorrect. You weren’t there when we decided on that one (2015).
From: Ext <ext-bounces_at_[hidden]ocpp.org> On Behalf Of Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash via Ext
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 4:34 AM
To: Corentin <corentin.jabot_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash <brycelelbach_at_[hidden]>; Ben Boeckel via Modules <modules_at_[hidden]>; ISO C++ Tooling Study Group <sg15_at_[hidden]>; C++ Library Evolution Working Group <lib-ext_at_[hidden]>; Nathan Sidwell <nathan_at_[hidden]>; Evolution Working Group mailing list <ext_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [isocpp-ext] [isocpp-modules] Modularization of the standard library and ABI stability
No, it just reflects the reality of the platforms. Let's not try to read the tea leaves to scry an intent when there wasn't one.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020, 04:29 Corentin <corentin.jabot_at_[hidden]<mailto:corentin.jabot_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 12:13, Nathan Sidwell via Modules <modules_at_[hidden]<mailto:modules_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
On 3/8/20 5:01 PM, Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash via Ext 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?
Some pushed for a breaking ABI change in Prague. This might be their
opportunity!
In Prague, the ABI breaking of modularization were known, I can't recall if they were mentioned
The existence of a weak model also tend to show that wg21 wants to prioritize abi stability over reliability
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
_______________________________________________
Modules mailing list
Modules_at_lists.isocpp.org<mailto:Modules_at_[hidden]>
Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/modules<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.isocpp.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fmodules&data=02%7C01%7Cgdr%40microsoft.com%7C66a25b8383ae47b057a308d7c41dc906%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637193504512275685&sdata=u%2F9n36FJhnnKEeAPrH%2FmLxmA7PTc%2FDSr3W%2FxqWaN9D0%3D&reserved=0>
Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/modules/2020/03/0823.php<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.isocpp.org%2Fmodules%2F2020%2F03%2F0823.php&data=02%7C01%7Cgdr%40microsoft.com%7C66a25b8383ae47b057a308d7c41dc906%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637193504512285653&sdata=eeM1wTezEjbdjAkJVb50rHGxrRAJFfoEdg4VfB60Dls%3D&reserved=0>
Received on 2020-03-09 17:27:05