Report from 3 August meeting

[Jim Dehnert]

Below is an edited version of the agenda, with the significant items
from the meeting noted (most of the real information is in the draft).
There are several things for Christophe to look at, and one for Alex.

WARNING:  The next meeting, on 17 August, will have a different
building/conference room.  Look for it in the contact info page,
which I'll update soon.  It's one freeway exit further north, and
not much harder to find, but you might want to give yourself an extra 5
minutes the first time...

As usual, most of the updates are in the ABI layout document, in red.
The significant changes from last meeting are:

  -- Updates to one-time initialization in 3.3.2.
  -- Updates to initialization priority in 3.3.4.

Please take a careful look at the colored text, and raise any issues
you observe.

Take a look at the material associated with the following issues.
If you see something, please send it by email.

  1) Mangling grammar modifications.  I think we match Alex's now.
     Can you look at this again, Alex?

  2) C-2:  Priority for constructors.  This is modified per our
     discussion in the meeting -- see the Draft ABI, 3.3.4.4.
     Is it OK now?

  3) G-4:  Thread-safe data initialization.  See 3.3.2.  Christophe
     had some ideas for optimization here.  I've updated 3.3.2 a bit,
     but the discussion of potential changes for Christophe's concerns
     is in the open issues page for issue G-4.  Christophe, can you
     take a look at it?

  4) F-3:  Mangling instantiation/specialization.
     F-4:  Empty throw specifications.

     We decided to table these issues for lack of interest.

We have the following issues without proposals.  Is there any interest
in pursuing them?

  5) F-5: ILP32 vs. LP64 mangling.  Christophe was going to think about
     whether to propose something specific, as I recall.

  6) G-1: Command line options.  Christophe was interested in
     specifying some common options for consistency.

Please also give some thought to what else (not on our lists) ought to
be considered at this point.

Note that it doesn't usually work to try to contact me by email
or phone the morning of the meeting, as I come directly from home.  If
you come in physically to the meeting, and the receptionist won't let
you come back to the conference room on your own, have her call the
conference room (it has a phone other than the one we use for the
meeting).

Jim

-		Jim Dehnert  x3-4272