What could C/C++ “lose” if they defined a standard

问题:

The title says everything. I am talking about C/C++ specifically, because both consider this as "implementation issue". I think, defining a standard interface can ease building a module system on top of it, and many other good things.
What could C/C++ "lose" if they defined a standard ABI?

回答1:

The freedom to implement things in the most natural way on each processor.

I imagine that c in particular has conforming implementations on more different architectures than any other language. Abiding by a ABI optimized for the currently common, high-end, general-purpose CPUs would require unnatural contortions on some the odder machines out there.

回答2:

Backwards compatibility on every platform except for the one whose ABI was chosen.

回答3:

The C (or C++) language specifications define the source language. They don't care about the processor running it (A C program could even be interpreted by a human slave, but that would be unethical and not cost-effective).

The ABI is by definition something about the target system. It is related to the processor and the system (and the existing libraries following the ABI).

In the past, it did happen that some processors had proprietary (i.e. undisclosed) specification (even their machine instruction set was not public), and they had a non-public ABI which was followed by a compiler (respecting more or less the language standard).

Defining a programming language don't require the same skill sets as defining the ABI.

^{You could even define a newer ABI for an existing processor, but that requires a lot of work (patching the compiler, recompiling every thing, including C & C++ standard libraries and all utilities and libraries that you need) so is generally useless.}

回答4:

Rather than a generic ABI for all platforms (which would be disastrous as it would only be optimal for only one platform). The standard's committee could say that each platform will conform to a specific ABI.

But: Who defines it (the first compiler through the door?). In which case they get an excessive competitive advantage. Or a committee after 5 years of compilers (which would be another horrible idea).

Also it does not give the compiler leaway to do further research into new optimization strategies, you would be stuck with the tricks available at the point where the standard was defined.

回答5:

Execution speed would suffer drastically on a majority of platforms. So much so that it would likely no longer be reasonable to use the C language for a number of embedded platforms. The standards body could be liable for an antitrust suit brought by the makers of the various chips not compatible with the ABI.

回答6:

Well, there wouldn't be one standard ABI, but about 1000. You would need one for every combination of OS and processor architecture.

Initially, nothing would be lost. But eventually, somebody would find some horrible bug and they would either fix it, breaking the ABI, or leave it, causing problems.

I think that the situation right now is fine. Any OS is free to define an ABI for itself (and they do), which makes sense. It should be the job of the OS to define its ABI, not the C/C++ standard.

回答7:

Basically, everyone missed that one of the C++14 proposals actually DID define a standard ABI. It was a standard ABI specifically for libraries that used a subset of C++. You define specific sections of "ABI" code (like a namespace) and it's required to conform to the subset.

Not only that, it was written by THE Herb Stutter, C++ expert and author the "Exceptional C++" book series.

The proposal goes into many reasons why a portable ABI is difficult, as well as novel solutions.

https://isocpp.org/blog/2014/05/n4028

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4028.pdf

Note that he defines a "target platform" to be a combination of CPU architecture (x64, x86, ARM, etc), OS, and bitness (32/64).

So the goal here, is actually having C++ code (Visual Studio) be able to talk to other C++ code (GCC, older Visual Studio, etc) on the same platform. It's not a goal of a universal ABI that lets cellphones libraries run on your Windows machine.

This proposal was NOT ratified in C++14, however, it was moved into the "Evolution" phase of C++17 for further discussion/iteration.

https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/blogs/5894415f-be62-4bc0-81c5-3956e82276f3/entry/c_14_is_ratified_the_view_from_the_june_2014_c_standard_meeting?lang=en

So as of January 2017, my fingers remain crossed.

回答8:

C always had a standard ABI, which is even the one used for any most standard ABI (I mean, the C ABI is the ABI of choice, when different languages or systems has to bind to each others). The C ABI is kind of common ABI of others ABIs. C++ is more complex although extending and thus based on C, and indeed, a standard ABI for C++ is more challenging and may present issues to the freedom a C++ compiler have for its own implementation of the target machine code. However, it seems to actually have a standard ABI; see Itanium C++ ABI.

So the question may not be that much “what could they loose?”, but rather “what do they loose?” (if ever they really loose something).

Side note: needed to keep in mind ABIs are always architecture and OS dependant. So if what was meant by “Standard ABI” is “standard across architectures and platforms”, then there may never has been or be such thing, but communication protocols.