Home/ Questions/Q 6909737
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-05-27T08:43:37+00:00

STL Binary Interfaces I’m curious to know if anyone is working on compatible interface

  • 0

STL Binary Interfaces

I’m curious to know if anyone is working on compatible interface layers for STL objects across multiple compilers and platforms for C++.

The goal would be to support STL types as first-class or intrinsic data types.

Is there some inherent design limitation imposed by templating in general that prevents this? This seems like a major limitation of using the STL for binary distribution.

Theory – Perhaps the answer is pragmatic

  1. Microsoft has put effort into .NET and doesn’t really care about C++ STL support being "first class".

  2. Open-source doesn’t want to promote binary-only distribution and focuses on getting things right with a single compiler instead of a mismatch of 10 different versions.

This seems to be supported by my experience with Qt and other libraries – they generally provide a build for the environment you’re going to be using. Qt 4.6 and VS2008 for example.

References:

Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Editorial Team

    I think the problem preceeds your theory: C++ doesn’t specify the ABI (application binary interface).

    In fact even C doesn’t, but being a C library just a collection of functions (and may be global variables) the ABI is just the name of the functions themselves. Depending on the platform, names can be mangled somehow, but, since every compiler must be able to place system calss, everything ends up using the same convention of the operating system builder (in windows, _cdecl just result in prepending a _ to the function name.

    But C++ has overloading, hence more complex mangling scheme are required.
    As far as of today, no agreement exists between compiler manufacturers about how such mangling must be done.
    It is technically impossible to compile a C++ static library and link it to a C++ OBJ coming from another compiler. The same is for DLLs.

    And since compilers are all different even for compiled overloaded member functions, no one is actually affording the problem of templates.

    It CAN technically be afforded by introducing a redirection for every parametric type, and introducing dispatch tables but … this makes templated function not different (in terms of call dispatching) than virtual functions of virtual bases, thus making the template performance to become similar to classic OOP dispatching (although it can limit code bloating … the trade-off is not always obvious)

    Right now, it seems there is no interest between compiler manufacturers to agree to a common standard since it will sacrifice all the performance differences every manufacturer can have with his own optimization.

    • 0