Thanks for your reply. It inspired me to do some further research. The response by Jonathan Wakely to this StackOverflow question:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/46746878/is-it-safe-to-link-c17-c14-and-...
indicates that, as a *GCC-specific* guarantee, C++ code is ABI-compatible across language standards. (There is more nuance when mixing GCC versions, which doesn’t apply here.)
So I think that you are right, at least as the situation applies to Fedora, and I retract my claims. The situation I referenced in grpc is (while real) not an *ABI* incompatibility, and building with upstream’s default C++ standard version should generally be the right thing to do.
On 8/23/21 11:35 AM, Ian McInerney via devel wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 4:13 PM Ben Beasley <code@musicinmybrain.net mailto:code@musicinmybrain.net> wrote:
The same specialization of ProcessorCache: template class ProcessorCache<std::size_t, ProcessorRcPtr>; is explicitly instantiated in two different translation units: src/OpenColorIO/Processor.cpp src/OpenColorIO/Config.cpp which violates the C++ standard (an explicit instantiation definition shall appear at most once in a program). Since you are compiling with C++11 (vs. C++98), you can change the line in Config.cpp to extern template class ProcessorCache<std::size_t, ProcessorRcPtr>; and it should be fine (in theory, I haven’t run a scratch build). ----- Side note: while CMake build systems tend to hard-code a C++ standard version, it’s better in my opinion if we can override it to match the default in GCC, currently C++17, since C++ code compiled with different standard versions is not ABI-compatible. For CMake, this often looks like -DCMAKE_CXX_STANDARD=17. (I don’t know a good way to obtain this value automatically.) To me, this is in the spirit of respecting the distribution’s build flags.
No, I don't think that this is a safe thing to do on a distribution level - overriding the chosen C++ standard of a project is not respecting upstream's decision, and could cause problems. For example, if upstream wants C++11 and uses std::auto_ptr, compiling with C++17 or C++20 would then break compilation because it was removed in those standard versions.
When each C++ library is compiled with its own upstream-preferred C standard version, it’s perfectly possible that an application might have dependencies using mutually exclusive C++ ABIs, in which case it would be impossible to package without bundled dependencies in Fedora. Or, things might appear to work but there could be problems at runtime or confusing linker errors down the road.
Do you have a reference for that? I thought the C++ ABI we are talking about here is compiler-dependent and not standard-depdenent (e.g. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/C_002b_002b-Dialect-Options.html#C_002b_0... https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/C_002b_002b-Dialect-Options.html#C_002b_002b-Dialect-Options), so there is the possibility of having problems if we build half the distro with one GCC version and the other half with a different one (hence why we generally do a mass rebuild after the GCC toolchain is updated to its new stable ABI). While there has been one very large change to my knowledge (e.g. std::string in C++11), the C++ standard seems to have tried very hard (to the point of rejecting changes that would violate it) to allow the ABI to be forward compatible between standard versions
It’s not a theoretical problem: grpc builds as C++17, and links against abseil-cpp which builds as C++17, but runs its unit tests using gtest which is built in Fedora as C++11. This means grpc has to bundle its own copy of gtest and build it as C++17. In this case, gtest is not exactly a bundled library in the usual sense, since it can be proven that nothing from gtest is linked into the installed libraries or executables. Of course, in some cases there are ecosystems of packages in Fedora that are all currently hard-coding C++11, which happens to work well for now—and adjusting one would mean adjusting them all. So the issue of C++ ABI version is a potentially ugly one either way. On 8/23/21 10:19 AM, Richard Shaw wrote: > I'm working on updating OpenColorIO to 2.0.1 and building in a side tag, > however, the build failed but only on armv7hf with: > > usr/lib/libpystring.so /usr/lib/libyaml-cpp.so.0.6.3 > ../testutils/libtestutils.a -lm ../../src/apputils/libapputils.a > /usr/bin/ld: CMakeFiles/test_cpu_exec.dir/Processor_tests.cpp.o (symbol > from plugin): in function > `OpenColorIO_v2_0::ProcessorMetadata::ProcessorMetadata()': > (.text+0x0): multiple definition of `typeinfo name for > OpenColorIO_v2_0::ProcessorCache<unsigned int, > std::shared_ptr<OpenColorIO_v2_0::Processor> >'; > CMakeFiles/test_cpu_exec.dir/Config_tests.cpp.o (symbol from > plugin):(.text+0x0): first defined here > /usr/bin/ld: CMakeFiles/test_cpu_exec.dir/Processor_tests.cpp.o (symbol > from plugin): in function > `OpenColorIO_v2_0::ProcessorMetadata::ProcessorMetadata()': > (.text+0x0): multiple definition of `typeinfo for > OpenColorIO_v2_0::ProcessorCache<unsigned int, > std::shared_ptr<OpenColorIO_v2_0::Processor> >'; > CMakeFiles/test_cpu_exec.dir/Config_tests.cpp.o (symbol from > plugin):(.text+0x0): first defined here > collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status > > Ideas? > > Thanks, > Richard > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org> > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ <https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/> > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines> > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org <https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure <https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure> > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ <https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org <https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure <https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure>
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure