Comment by pjmlp
5 days ago
Breaking within the same std, is something impossible to prevent in compiled languages with enough freedom in build.
Even the C ABI many talk about, most of them don't have any idea of what they are actually talking about.
First of all, it is the OS ABI, in operating systems that happened to be written in C.
Secondly, even C binary libraries have plenty of breakage opportunities within the same std, and compiler.
ABI stability even in languages that kind of promise it, is in reality an half promise.
Bytecode, or some part of the language is guaranteed to be stable, while being tied to a specific version, not all build flags fall under the promise, and not much is promised over the standard library.
Even other good examples that go to great efforts like Java, .NET or Swift, aren't fully ABI safe.
> First of all, it is the OS ABI, in operating systems that happened to be written in C.
It may be per-OS (I wouldn't try linking Linux and NT object files even if they were both compiled from C by GCC with matching versions and everything), but enough details come from C that I think it's fair to call it a C ABI. Like, I can write unix software in pascal, but in order to write to stdout that code is gonna have to convert pascal strings into C strings. OTOH, pascal binaries using pascal libraries can use pascal semantics even on an OS that uses C ABIs.
Strings is the easy part.
Try to link two binary libraries in Linux, both compiled with GCC, while not using exactly the same compiler flags, or the same data padding, for example things like structures.
Since committee people can explain it even better,
"To Save C, We Must Save ABI"
https://thephd.dev/to-save-c-we-must-save-abi-fixing-c-funct...
Sorry, this is nonsense. Binaries link just fine on Linux. If you use a compiler flag that changes the ABI, then you are on your own, of course, but the GCC docu makes it very clear which specific flags those are. There is some corner cases with problems where you get problems if you use different compilers, e.g. atomic alignment (by adopting the broken C++ design into C) and some other corner cases where compilers did things slightly different.
4 replies →
It's certainly not impossible to write code that breaks, or modify a library in an ABI-incompatible way, but ABI stability, at least on Linux, does largely Just Work™. A missing older shared library can be quite problematic, but that's largely it.
And while, yes, there are times where ABIs are broken, compiler versions affecting things would add a whole another uncontrollable axis on top of that. I would quite like to avoid a world of "this library can only be used by code compiled with clang-25" as much as possible.
Works most of the time, probably, isn't really the meaning of stable.
Can't solve the issue of "you just don't have the library (or a specific version thereof) installed".
But you can make it worse by changing "You must have version X of library Y installed" to "You must have version X of library Y compiled by compiler Z installed".
As-is, one can reasonably achieve ABI stability for their C library if they want to; really all it takes is "don't modify exposed types or signatures of exposed functions" and "don't use intmax_t", and currently you can actually break the latter.
4 replies →
This is honestly what pisses me off about the whole ABI thing. The ABI is defined by the OS, not the compiler. The compiler just implements the ABI, but somehow everyone lets their OS be defined by what a particular C/C++ implementation does. This then leads to FFI realistically only being possible by using a C/C++ compiler for interfacing, which defeats the point of an OS wide ABI.
I would consider the compiler to be part of the OS. You can't use an OS, if there is no way to create programs for it.