Issue reminder

[Jim Dehnert]

We have several issues on the table from the C++ ABI group.  Since we
haven't gotten the expected email discussion traffic, I hope they've
all been considered and found satisfactory.  As a reminder, think about:

Issue 72:  COMDAT group sections
	http://reality.sgi.com/dehnert_engr/abi/prop-72-comdat.html
	http://reality.sgi.com/dehnert_engr/abi/prop-72-comdat.pdf

	This is critical to C++ features like vtables, inline
	functions, etc.

Issue 74:  Section indices
	http://reality.sgi.com/dehnert_engr/abi/prop-74-sindex.html
	http://reality.sgi.com/dehnert_engr/abi/prop-74-sindex.pdf

	This is a longer term concern, which will become more important
	with heavy COMDAT usage.

Issue 73:  Stack unwind interface
	http://reality.sgi.com/dehnert_engr/cxx/abi-eh.html
	http://reality.sgi.com/dehnert_engr/cxx/abi-eh.pdf

	This is mostly consistent with, but more completely specified
	than, the current SW Conventions description.

Issue ??:  IPLT relocations
	I sent a proposal a while back to extend these to .o files.
	Cygnus has expressed concern about conflict with the lazy
	loading semantics, which would be resolved by a second
	relocation which is identical but doesn't allow lazy binding.
	I don't care which approach is taken, in fact being able to
	force early binding might be useful in any case, but C++ will
	need to be able to relocate functions descriptors in vtables.

Issue ??:  Types
	I sent a note a couple of days ago.  We must decide whether
	__int64 and __float80 are distinct types, or typedefs of long
	long and long double.  As Martin pointed out, we should also
	specify bindings of the sized types defined by C2000.

Query:  Sorting approach
	C++ needs to be able to sort constructors and other
	initializers.  We have two proposals on the table -- one sorts
	sections, is implemented in Linux today, and MUST be supported
	in the linker; the other sorts elements within a section, and
	may be implemented either in the linker or in a runtime.  See

	http://reality.sgi.com/dehnert_engr/cxx/cxx-open.html#C2

	We would like feedback, in particular whether vendors would
	object to requiring the linker support for the first approach.
	(Note that either approach allows linker implementation.)

Jim

-		Jim Dehnert  x3-4272