Re:Apache Kills Off Its C++ Standard Library
by ArbitraryLimits on Thursday July 18, 2013 @05:25PM
(#6066628)
It seems like C++'s lack of an ABI would bite you way before any issues with libc++. (Or is there one now? I'm getting old.)
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Apache Kills Off Its C++ Standard Library
by binarycrusader on Thursday July 18, 2013 @08:33PM
(#6067561)
C++ has an ABI that almost all vendors actively work towards conformance to called the Itanium C++ ABI (yes, it applies to other architectures too):
This document was developed jointly by an informal
industry coalition consisting of (in alphabetical order)
CodeSourcery, Compaq, EDG, HP, IBM, Intel, Red Hat, and
SGI. Additional contributions were provided by a variety of
individuals.
...
In general, this document is written as a generic
specification, to be usable by C++ implementations on a
variety of architectures.
http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/cxxabi-1.83.html
Re:Apache Kills Off Its C++ Standard Library
by plorkyeran on Thursday July 18, 2013 @05:48PM
(#6066778)
In practice all of the compilers have arrived at a common ABI for each platform.
Re:Apache Kills Off Its C++ Standard Library
by bstamour on Thursday July 18, 2013 @09:25PM
(#6067766)
Technically C doesn't have a standard ABI either. Compilers just tend to use similar symbol names.
True, what many perceive as the C ABI is actually the OS ABI.
As most OSs tend to be written mostly in C, it is natural that C ABI == OS ABI.
In the few cases where the OS was written in other languages, like the mainframe systems, the early 80's OS done in Pascal dialects (Mac OS), Modula-2 (Lillith), Assembly (MS-DOS/CP-M) and many others to list here, there was no C ABI to speak of.