[libcxx-dev] Advancing libc++ Beyond C++03

[Louis Dionne via libcxx-dev]

> On Jun 10, 2019, at 16:37, Eric Fiselier via libcxx-dev <libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> libc++ claims to support GCC with C++03 ("G++03"), and this is a problem for our users.
> 
> Our C++03 users are all using Clang. They must be.  Less than 9% of the C++03 tests pass with GCC [1][2]. No non-trivial C++ program could work.
> 
> Attempting to support G++03 impacts our QoI considerably. Unlike Clang, G++03 offers almost no C++11 extensions. If we could remove all the fallbacks for G++03, it would mean libc++ could::

I like the general idea and I definitely support dropping support for C++03 under GCC, since it is effectively unsupported today anyway.


> * Improve Correctness:
> 
> Every `#ifdef _LIBCPP_HAS_NO_<C++11-feature>` is a bug manifest. It exists to admit for deviant semantics.
> 
> * Achieve ABI stability between C++03 and C++11
> 
> Differences between our C++03 and C++Rest branches contain ABI bugs. For example `std::nullptr_t` and `std::function::operator()(...)` are currently incompatible between C++11 and C++03, but could be fixed.

I'd like to echo what some people said regarding breaking ABI here. Instead of breaking the ABI for C++11 extensions in C++03, we could also remove them altogether. This would be a larger change that would require a deprecation period for those extensions, but it might be worth it and it would be safer than an ABI break (because source breaks are compile-time). We could:

1. Introduce a switch that removes C++11 extensions in C++03
2. Somehow flag the use of these extensions, asking users to move to C++11 or use alternatives
3. After some time, toggle the switch to ON by default, removing the extensions
4. After some time, remove the switch altogether
5. Get rid of the C++11 extensions in C++03, which are now unused

This hinges on the feasibility of users actually moving to C++11 or using alternatives, and most importantly the number of impacted users. If there's interest, it would be possible to survey large some code bases to get a sense for these numbers and the feasibility of my plan.

Eric, WDYT?

Either way, I would try to dissociate the two projects of dropping support for GCC/C++03 AND taking advantage of the freedom that gives us.

Louis

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/libcxx-dev/attachments/20190611/a2d66dab/attachment.html>