[cfe-dev] [libc++] Guarantee that TUs built with different versions of libc++ can be linked together

Wed Aug 15 09:27:50 PDT 2018

> On Aug. 14, 2018, at 13:43, Louis Dionne <ldionne at apple.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Aug 14, 2018, at 13:56, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com <mailto:rjmccall at apple.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Aug 14, 2018, at 1:19 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com <mailto:dexonsmith at apple.com>> wrote:
>>> I support this change too.
>>> 
>>> At least in the short term, I think vendors should still have the capability to provide this guarantee without user opt-in by changing the default macro settings (switching it to a user opt-out).
>> 
>> I agree with both of these points.
> 
> I implemented these in the latest revision of https://reviews.llvm.org/D50652 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D50652>.
> 
> With https://reviews.llvm.org/D50652 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D50652>, by default, internal_linkage is NOT used and it is NOT safe to link TUs compiled with different versions of libc++. When _LIBCPP_ABI_HIDDEN_USE_INTERNAL_LINKAGE is defined, internal_linkage is used and it IS safe again to link TUs compiled with different versions of libc++.

I may be confused about the meaning of the patch, but it looks to me like that macro is choosing between two ways of making such TU-libc++-version-mixing safe: always_inline and internal_linkage.  Which seems like a good thing, but distinct.

> To make that the default behavior, libc++ can be configured with `cmake <…> -DLIBCXX_ABI_HIDDEN_USE_INTERNAL_LINKAGE=ON` and _LIBCPP_ABI_HIDDEN_USE_INTERNAL_LINKAGE will be defined by default.
> 
> Bikeshedding on the name of that option is welcome on the review page — but I’d like to keep the form _LIBCPP_ABI_XXX to be consistent with other ABI-related macros.
> 
> Louis
> 
>> 
>> John.
>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Aug. 14, 2018, at 10:11, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com <mailto:rnk at google.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I 100% support not providing this guarantee by default. It always seemed a bit too heroic to me for libc++ to try to provide this support.
>>>> 
>>>> I think most people with standard library version skew typically only have skew between separate DSOs.
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:49 AM Louis Dionne via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> libc++ currently allows TUs that were built using different versions of libc++ to be linked together. Roughly speaking, this is achieved by making sure that anything not ABI-stable is local to each TU. This also allows distributing a static archive without caring too much about the version of libc++ it was compiled with, at least in principle. Supporting this use case creates code bloat for all users of libc++, since private functions are duplicated in each TU.
>>>> 
>>>> I posit that few clients actually care about this, yet everybody is paying for it in terms of executable size. Hence, I would like to change the default guarantee offered by libc++ from "this use case is supported" to "this use case is not supported". The use case would still be supported by defining a macro for those that need it.
>>>> 
>>>> Does anybody have objections to this change?
>>>> 
>>>> Louis
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev>
>>> 
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20180815/fbfa5399/attachment.html>