[cxx-abi-dev] C++0x POD

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Lawrence Crowl<crowl at google.com> wrote:
> With all the changes in the standard library, I do not see much
> value in preserving the ABI of the core language.  Programmers
> can reasonably expect some change to the ABI in a major release
> of the standard.
>
> With respect to the complex<> example, does the existing C++
> ABI match the C ABI for complex?

First, I would like to make sure that we don't think we have to change
the ABI (or not!) just because of complex<double>.  It was just
an example that I wanted people to consider when deciding one way of
another, for C++0x ABI.

Second, the C++03 specification explicitly list a copy constructor.
I always considered that a mistake.  For libstdc++, I did rely on
the implicitly generated copy constructor, which achieves the same
effect, plus it makes complex<double> eligible for registers (where
appropriate) in calls.

> If we were to change the  C++ ABI, would they match?
>
> --
> Lawrence Crowl
>