RE: [boost] Re: SmartPtr - Exception safety reprise

From: Jason Shirk (jasonsh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-02 22:43:13

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Abrahams [mailto:dave_at_[hidden]]
> 
> "David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
> > Well, I want to at least give the VC++ guys a few days to see if
> > they say anything.  I posted a question on a M$ newsgroup.  I
> > think I did the first time around, too, and they didn't.  It would
be
> > really cool if, say, Jason Shirk offered some insight, or at least
> > knocked some skulls so we got *some* kind of answer, even if
> > it's "there's no way in heck we will give out that kind of
> > information".
> 

If you aren't getting reasonably prompt responses to questions like this
on MS newsgroups, send me a private email and I'll definitely follow up.
As a team, VC++ is significantly more responsive to NG posts now, but
some still slip through the cracks.

> What question are you asking?  I think all NDAs on the vc7.1 betas are
> expired, so I can just run a test...
> 
> However, you obviously missed my point: there _is_ no way in heck
> they're going to change the object layout, thus making vc7.1 object
> code incompatible with vc7 object code.  Objects with multiple empty
> bases have to have the same size in both versions and their members
> have to live at the same offsets.
> 
> BTW, VC++ is not the only kid on the block, and the same argument
> applies to all the other players.
> 

As usual, you are absolutely correct.  Backwards compatibility in our
object model is critical.  I seriously doubt we'll ever do the ZBO by
default.

I do plan on implementing it in the next few months, and it will
definitely be under a switch.  I can't possibly predict when anyone
outside MS will see such a compiler though, sorry.

--
Jason Shirk
VC++ Compiler Team