Louis Dionne via llvm-dev
2018-Jul-30 20:19 UTC
[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Filesystem has Landed in Libc++
FWIW, I’d like for us to come to an agreement before the branch for LLVM 7.0 is cut. How do others feel about this? Am I wrong when I claim that shipping an ABI-unstable feature in the std:: namespace is a deviation from normal practice? Am I overcautious when I say it’s asking for trouble? Eric, I know you’re busy and may not have time to do the work so I’m totally willing to chime in, but I’d like to have your thoughts on my objection first. Cheers, Louis> On Jul 27, 2018, at 17:02, Louis Dionne via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Eric, > > I’m curious to know what the concerns are w.r.t. providing ABI stability for filesystem right now. What do you envision may require changing the ABI in the future? > > I feel like taking filesystem out of experimental/ without providing the usual guarantees provided by libc++ for non-experimental code may not be a good idea, as we’ll be pretending that we support filesystem when we really only half support it. In other words, I think the number of people that will start using filesystem while _consciously_ knowing that it is ABI-unstable (and what that means) is quite small, and that is making our users a disservice. > > Would it be possible to instead ship the parts we’re not quite sure we can keep ABI stable in the headers (with `_LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI`) for the time being, and lower them to the dylib eventually as things stabilize? This would allow us to ship filesystem with LLVM 7.0 without any compromise on the guarantees we make our users. > > I’m curious to know what you think of this suggestion. > Louis > >> On Jul 27, 2018, at 00:20, Eric Fiselier via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> I recently committed <filesystem> to trunk. I wanted to bring attention to some quirks it currently has. >> >> First, it's been put in a separate library, libc++fs, for now. Users are responsible for linking the library when they use filesystem. >> >> Second, it should still not be considered ABI stable. Vendors should be aware of this before shipping it. Hopefully all the standard and implementation bugs can be resolved by the next release, and we can move it into the main dylib. >> >> Third, libc++experimental no longer contains the symbols for <experimental/filesystem>, which is really just <filesystem> is disguise. If you've been using <experimental/filesystem> you now need to link libc++fs instead. >> >> Fourth, `<filesystem>` is technically available in C++11 and later. The implementation lives in the std::__fs::filesystem namespace, which is marked "inline" in C++17 but not before. We should consider documenting this as an extension to its use w/o C++17. >> >> Happy coding, >> >> /Eric >> >> [1] http://libcxx.llvm.org/docs/UsingLibcxx.html#using-filesystem-and-libc-fs <http://libcxx.llvm.org/docs/UsingLibcxx.html#using-filesystem-and-libc-fs>_______________________________________________ >> cfe-dev mailing list >> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev> > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-dev mailing list > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev>-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180730/ed53f688/attachment.html>
Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev
2018-Aug-02 07:46 UTC
[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Filesystem has Landed in Libc++
I only saw this now after the llvm 7 branch was cut. It would be good to get this all figured out before the release :-) On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:19 PM, Louis Dionne via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> FWIW, I’d like for us to come to an agreement before the branch for LLVM 7.0 > is cut. How do others feel about this? Am I wrong when I claim that shipping > an ABI-unstable feature in the std:: namespace is a deviation from normal > practice? Am I overcautious when I say it’s asking for trouble? > > Eric, I know you’re busy and may not have time to do the work so I’m totally > willing to chime in, but I’d like to have your thoughts on my objection > first. > > Cheers, > Louis > > > On Jul 27, 2018, at 17:02, Louis Dionne via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> > wrote: > > Eric, > > I’m curious to know what the concerns are w.r.t. providing ABI stability for > filesystem right now. What do you envision may require changing the ABI in > the future? > > I feel like taking filesystem out of experimental/ without providing the > usual guarantees provided by libc++ for non-experimental code may not be a > good idea, as we’ll be pretending that we support filesystem when we really > only half support it. In other words, I think the number of people that will > start using filesystem while _consciously_ knowing that it is ABI-unstable > (and what that means) is quite small, and that is making our users a > disservice. > > Would it be possible to instead ship the parts we’re not quite sure we can > keep ABI stable in the headers (with `_LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI`) for the time > being, and lower them to the dylib eventually as things stabilize? This > would allow us to ship filesystem with LLVM 7.0 without any compromise on > the guarantees we make our users. > > I’m curious to know what you think of this suggestion. > Louis > > On Jul 27, 2018, at 00:20, Eric Fiselier via cfe-dev > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi All, > > I recently committed <filesystem> to trunk. I wanted to bring attention to > some quirks it currently has. > > First, it's been put in a separate library, libc++fs, for now. Users are > responsible for linking the library when they use filesystem. > > Second, it should still not be considered ABI stable. Vendors should be > aware of this before shipping it. Hopefully all the standard and > implementation bugs can be resolved by the next release, and we can move it > into the main dylib. > > Third, libc++experimental no longer contains the symbols for > <experimental/filesystem>, which is really just <filesystem> is disguise. If > you've been using <experimental/filesystem> you now need to link libc++fs > instead. > > Fourth, `<filesystem>` is technically available in C++11 and later. The > implementation lives in the std::__fs::filesystem namespace, which is marked > "inline" in C++17 but not before. We should consider documenting this as an > extension to its use w/o C++17. > > Happy coding, > > /Eric > > [1] > http://libcxx.llvm.org/docs/UsingLibcxx.html#using-filesystem-and-libc-fs > _______________________________________________ > cfe-dev mailing list > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-dev mailing list > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >
Louis Dionne via llvm-dev
2018-Aug-07 18:15 UTC
[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Filesystem has Landed in Libc++
Hi, My current understanding of the problem (based on https://reviews.llvm.org/D49774) is that we have a type, file_time_type, which is part of the ABI and is currently defined as std::chrono::time_point<_FileSystemClock>, where _FileSystemClock is an internal type represented using a __int128_t. However, C++20 will add a type called file_clock and redefine file_time_type to be std::chrono::time_point<std::chrono::file_clock> instead, which is an ABI break. Is this correct, and is this the only concern we have with respect to the ABI stability of Filesystem as currently included in the release branch for LLVM 7? If that is correct, then we can either (1) define file_time_type in a way that is forward-ABI-compatible with the definition that will be used in C++20 and patch LLVM 7 accordingly (2) do nothing and live with an ABI break in C++20 (3) revert r338093 (and perhaps some patches that depend on it) in the LLVM 7 branch, and keep shipping Filesystem as being experimental (1) is ideal, but we have to confirm that my understanding is correct AND agree on a fix, soon. (2) is a no-go. (3) is the safest and simplest option. If we can't get a solution for (1) going very soon, I would like to request that we implement (3) and remove Filesystem from the non-experimental namespace in the LLVM 7 branch. This is unfortunate, but we're currently running towards (2), which is desirable for nobody. I suggest a deadline of Friday August 10th to have settled on a solution for (1) so as to give us time to implement it and review it in time for RC 2, on August 22nd. Louis> On Aug 2, 2018, at 03:46, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > > I only saw this now after the llvm 7 branch was cut. > > It would be good to get this all figured out before the release :-) > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:19 PM, Louis Dionne via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> FWIW, I’d like for us to come to an agreement before the branch for LLVM 7.0 >> is cut. How do others feel about this? Am I wrong when I claim that shipping >> an ABI-unstable feature in the std:: namespace is a deviation from normal >> practice? Am I overcautious when I say it’s asking for trouble? >> >> Eric, I know you’re busy and may not have time to do the work so I’m totally >> willing to chime in, but I’d like to have your thoughts on my objection >> first. >> >> Cheers, >> Louis >> >> >> On Jul 27, 2018, at 17:02, Louis Dionne via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> >> wrote: >> >> Eric, >> >> I’m curious to know what the concerns are w.r.t. providing ABI stability for >> filesystem right now. What do you envision may require changing the ABI in >> the future? >> >> I feel like taking filesystem out of experimental/ without providing the >> usual guarantees provided by libc++ for non-experimental code may not be a >> good idea, as we’ll be pretending that we support filesystem when we really >> only half support it. In other words, I think the number of people that will >> start using filesystem while _consciously_ knowing that it is ABI-unstable >> (and what that means) is quite small, and that is making our users a >> disservice. >> >> Would it be possible to instead ship the parts we’re not quite sure we can >> keep ABI stable in the headers (with `_LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI`) for the time >> being, and lower them to the dylib eventually as things stabilize? This >> would allow us to ship filesystem with LLVM 7.0 without any compromise on >> the guarantees we make our users. >> >> I’m curious to know what you think of this suggestion. >> Louis >> >> On Jul 27, 2018, at 00:20, Eric Fiselier via cfe-dev >> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> I recently committed <filesystem> to trunk. I wanted to bring attention to >> some quirks it currently has. >> >> First, it's been put in a separate library, libc++fs, for now. Users are >> responsible for linking the library when they use filesystem. >> >> Second, it should still not be considered ABI stable. Vendors should be >> aware of this before shipping it. Hopefully all the standard and >> implementation bugs can be resolved by the next release, and we can move it >> into the main dylib. >> >> Third, libc++experimental no longer contains the symbols for >> <experimental/filesystem>, which is really just <filesystem> is disguise. If >> you've been using <experimental/filesystem> you now need to link libc++fs >> instead. >> >> Fourth, `<filesystem>` is technically available in C++11 and later. The >> implementation lives in the std::__fs::filesystem namespace, which is marked >> "inline" in C++17 but not before. We should consider documenting this as an >> extension to its use w/o C++17. >> >> Happy coding, >> >> /Eric >> >> [1] >> http://libcxx.llvm.org/docs/UsingLibcxx.html#using-filesystem-and-libc-fs >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-dev mailing list >> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-dev mailing list >> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>