[dang]

Discussed at the time:

To save C, we must save ABI - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30660528 - March 2022 (128 comments)

[jmclnx]

Thanks.

But the title seems to be misleading. the title should be "to save c++, ....", c++ is not c nor is c the same as c++.

In the old link you provided, no one mentioned this is strictly about the c++ ABI.

>That's why I think C++ should be forked... Not to mention microsoft is probably the main culprit here.

But jokoon came close with the above quote.

[dang]

I'm sorry but I don't understand that and from a very superficial skim of the article it doesn't seem obvious that the title should say C++.

[detaro]

It shouldn't. The article picks up from a C++-centric discussion and looks at it from the perspective of C.

[zabzonk]

and as i said back then:

> I'd just like to clarify that it's specific _compilers_ that produce code that complies with an ABI specification (or don't). Neither the C nor the C++ language standards specify an ABI format.

[SAI_Peregrinus]

Yep, the "target triple" (poorly named) defines a C ABI. Every target triple defines a new C ABI.