> I'm not sure if I follow. Supporting multiple C++ ABIs would make
> things more complicated for developers because they now have to figure
> out which ABI their project needs and if all the libraries they want to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> use are available with the right ABI.
>From the example in BZ1415512, all libraries are standard, the sources remain the same regardless the compiler to be used. Alas, clang++ now needs to link against the GCC ABI to successfully compile.
There are some cases when one needs to try different tools, for instance to take advantage of the LLVM's instrumentation tools which IMHO constitute a plus, not a pain.
>
> I really don't think we should move in this direction.
>
Reading the package review request by "spot" and the comments, there is no indication the review stalled because of ABIs worries. But I don't really have a clue in packaging issues; onlooking at the BZ, it stroke me that particular package was not a hard case review-wise.
Are there pointers elsewhere indicating the corner cases of introducing another C++ ABI into Fedora? What would be your comments about the situation in Debian+derivatives and Archlinux+derivatives? Both distros have the LLVM ABI and so far, so good for C++ developers.
Thanks.
> Thanks,
> Florian
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
