[cfe-dev] C++ Language Support Library
Sebastian Redl
sebastian.redl at getdesigned.at
Mon Nov 10 14:08:17 PST 2008
Chris Lattner wrote:
> I think that retaining compatibility with libstdc++ would be a very
> worthwhile goal (as is supporting the apache library, stlport, and/or
> whatever other ones exist, where reasonable). What is the cost of
> doing this? Does it use crazy GCC extensions that we don't want to
> implement?
I think it's not only worthwhile, it's absolutely vital. If we don't
support compiling with libstdc++ (and compile it exactly the way GCC
does), we don't have binary compatibility for shared objects, where
standard library types appear in interfaces. This would be bad for us,
and bad for C++.
libstdc++ doesn't use any special GCC extensions that we don't already
have, except in the TR1 and C++0x area. But those intrinsics we have to
implement anyway.
The main problem is that we're playing catch-up, and libstdc++ is a
moving target. As GCC's support for C++0x grows, so does libstdc++'s
usage of those features. We'll probably have to be on par with GCC in
features to compile libstdc++.
Sebastian
More information about the cfe-dev
mailing list