On Wednesday, 15 April 2026 05:46:02 Pacific Daylight Time Zhao YunShan wrote:
> C can technically achieve everything C++ does, so why is C++ considered
> necessary? C++98 can do everything C++11 does, so why do we even need
> C++1x, C++2x, and beyond?

Because those add sufficient new functionality or make some coding tasks
sufficiently easier or other qualitative adjectives to be worth the cost. The
problems they are solving are sufficiently common.

I'm not arguing against adding any new features to the Standard. I am asking
why *this* one is worth it.

> >See also Sebastian's reply, showing there are different interception
> >techniques for different conditions, none of which the Standard is aware
> >of. There's no way to have a *single* native language feature that will
> >work for all of those conditions. So is it worth standardising one way of
> >interception that doesn't always work?
>
> The solutions I proposed are all implemented purely at the language code
> level (except for the process of swapping function symbols/names, but I
> assume that isn't too difficult). If older compilers support this code, why
> would the differences in OS linking methods you mentioned even come into
> play?

Because code that is already compiled will never call these interceptor
functions. So you have some callers calling the new functions and some not
doing so.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
  Principal Engineer - Intel Data Center - Platform & Sys. Eng.