[RFC] C++1x breaking the ABI in one more place :(

[Mark Mitchell]

Joe Buck wrote:

> But this is a kind of breakage that might be acceptable to fix an
> otherwise broken library (though users should be warned about it),
> especially in cases where we wouldn't expect this kind of use.

I agree -- but not without a bump in the .so number.  It is a serious
binary incompatibility, unless you can convince yourself that nobody
derived from this class.

> Now, if only we could hop in our time machines, go back, and put in a few
> dummy slots in certain virtual function tables in the standard library.

That's such a good idea that I think libstdc++ should do it when it does
bump the .so number.  Add three slots for every class with any virtual
functions Just In Case.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713