31 August meeting

[Jim Dehnert]

Hi,

Yellowstone was nice.  I've read my email, but not responded to it all.
I am assuming that the absence of "I won't be there" messages means
that we will be ready to deal with the material below, especially
exceptions, Mark's C-19 list, and G-4, as well as the various items
that have come up in email over the past week.  Tomorrow I'll update
the pages some more, create PDF, and send an agenda, but there
shouldn't be major surprises from the current HTML and last week's
mail.  See you tomorrow.

Jim

> Subject: Minutes from 17 August meeting
> Reply-To: Jim Dehnert <dehnert at baalbek.engr.sgi.com>
> 
> Hi, all,
> 
> Since our attendance was, ah, weak, I'll summarize what we did.
> And there's homework below, so please read...  Numbers are from the
> agenda.
> 
>  2) C-2:  We accepted the current version of constructor priority,
>     with the additional change (I missed it last time) of the pragma
>     name from init_priority to just priority.  I have verified since
>     that this won't conflict with anything from OpenMP or pthreads.
> 
>  3) C-18:  We accepted the proposal.  That is, in all cases where a
>     result class is to be returned in a buffer supplied by the caller,
>     whether for long classes (>256 bits) or because of non-trivial copy
>     constructors or destructors, the buffer address is passed in r8 on
>     IA-64, as specified by the psABI for long structs in C.
> 
>  9) H-1:  We will name the C++ runtime library libcxa.so .
> 
> Now for the homework:
> 
> Our next meeting is scheduled for 31 August, just before Labor Day
> weekend.  I would like to go over any issues people have found with the
> exception handling draft at the next meeting.  So, if you (a) are
> concerned with that subject, and (b) can't come 31 August or can't look
> at it carefully by then, please let me know ASAP, and I'll consider
> cancelling that meeting.
> 
> The following scheduled meeting is 14 September, but I'll be out of
> town and intend to cancel it.  So the next one after 31 August will be
> 28 September.
> 
>  1) Alex:  Does the mangling grammar look OK now?
> 
>  4) Mark:  We need a specific list of changes for C-19.
> 
>  5) Christophe:  Does the proposal at the end of G-4 (open issues page)
>     look like it solves your concerns?    Would anyone else have
>     problems with it as a resolution of the one-time init interface?
>     Note the tradeoff:  It would increase the guard variable size from
>     8 to 40 bytes, but would likely eliminate a bunch of instructions
>     to gather that data for the destructor registration call.  (But it
>     would be a pure loss for no-destructor objects.  So perhaps we
>     should modify it to eliminate the extra data for those, and pass a
>     parameter to indicate that to the release routine?)
> 
>  6) Everyone:  Go over the exception handling material.
> 
>  7) Christophe:  I think issue F-5 is dead unless you have something
>     specific in mind (mangling ILP32 vs. LP64), and probably even then.
>     Do you.
> 
>  8) Christophe:  Similarly G-1 on command line options.
> 
> I'm on vacation next week, so I won't see or respond to anything
> between the 19th and 28th.  I'll try to get updated documents out by
> tomorrow.
> 
> Jim
-	    Jim Dehnert		dehnert at sgi.com
				(650)933-4272