This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Linux vs. libio
- To: Jason Merrill <jason at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: Linux vs. libio
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 10:31:26 -0700
- cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Ulrich Drepper <drepper at gnu dot org>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, libc-alpha at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- Reply-To: law at cygnus dot com
In message <u9g0wxbk5g.fsf@yorick.cygnus.com>you write:
> >>>>> Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com> writes:
>
> > You will need to work with the glibc folks to find a solution that makes
> > sense to them as we do not want to start changing the API of the libio
> > contained in GCC without making corresponding changes to the libio
> > contained in glibc.
>
> The problem is that part of the libio API is the C++ vtables, so any ABI
> change that modifies the layout of the vtable (such as -fvtable-thunks) or
> how the vtable is found breaks libio.
Right. This is precisely why I stated that we should not change libio without
changing glibc too. They need to change in lock-step.
That means that the libc folks have to be intimately involved in the decisions
we make regarding the ABI/API of libio (and IMHO have the ultimate yea/nay
decision for such changes).
> This has caused us a lot of trouble over the years; perhaps the answer is
> to change that design,
Possibly, but that does not help us with the existing glibc installations.
> but this *is* supposed to be the all-singing, all-dancing, ultimate C++
> ABI.
:-) I'll be floating on air when it's all ready. I really want to put
the ABI issues behind us once and for all.
jeff