On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 12:13, Nathan Sidwell via Modules <modules@lists.isocpp.org> 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@lists.isocpp.org
Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/modules
Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/modules/2020/03/0823.php