Boost logo

Boost :

From: Marshall Clow (mclow.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-12-02 16:12:07

On Dec 2, 2020, at 7:58 AM, Jeff Garland via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 8:50 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden] <mailto:boost_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
> It doesn't need to define ABI for it to be real -- the library implementers
> are very aggressive in limiting ABI breaks. The former LEWG chair (Titus)
> was quite vocal in wanting to remove this constraint leading to vigorous
> debates and a vote which basically affirmed that the committee was very
> split on the matter, but preferred stability.
> As an example of this, libstdc++ had to switch their basic_string to a
>> non-reference counted implementation when they added support for C++11,
>> and they had to maintain both versions ever since. The standard,
>> obviously, only defines one basic_string.
> And that was the last ABI break that made it thru the committee -- so a
> good decade ago.

And if you watch stack overflow, people are *still* getting bit by that change. <> (2015) <> (2016) <> (2017) <> (2018) <> (2019, in reference to boost!)

And so on.

— Marshall

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at