This question already has answers here:
What is meant when a piece of code is said to be portable? [closed]
(3 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
Around the Internet I see libraries that claim to be written in portable C++,
as if it was a (maybe unofficial) standard.
Is there a precise definition of what is portable C++, and if so, what is it ?
I'm not asking for common practices for writing portable code, but if there really is something we can call "portable c++".
Portable C++ is quite ambiguous.
However, if you want to achieve portability, only use the Standard Library of C++, and no platform specific code (like read, write syscalls on Linux), no compiler specific intrinsics (like GCC's C / C++ extensions), or inline assembly for a specific CPU.
Keep in mind, that even this might not be "portable". You can compile C++ for a wide variety of platforms (including embedded), and not all of these platforms might ship with a Standard C++ library, or have a compiler supporting the latest and greatest C++ features (C++11, C++14 comes in mind).
True portability can not be achieved, you can, however, achieve portability for the most common platforms, or commit to support these X platforms, and build a platform specific solution for each of them (which is a considerable amount of work, and results in a lot of #ifdef OS1 code).
Portable C++ code means that such code can be compiled for (almost) any platform and by any implementation.
So the goals are, it's unimportant if the program should be running on
different operating systems (windows, linux, OSX)
different architectures (x86, x86-64, titanium , sparc, arm)
different runtime libraries/compilers (gcc, clang, MSVC)
To achieve this, you have to consider many aspects
- Don't use implementation defined APIs and behavior, only use the standard library
- Don't use architecture defined assumptions and behavior, like that char has 8 bits, or negative integers are 2-complement and overflow or that int is 32-bit long and so on
Problem is, you often has to use stuff, for which there is no standard in C++, like networking interfaces. So libraries often try to work around this problem, by using different specific solutions for the most popular systems, selected by the preprocessor.
So as you see portability is always to see in a context, because absolute portability is not practical achievable. For example C++ code that is portable for any C++11 compliant compiler (but most compilers aren't 100%, see MSVC 12/2013), or portable for C++11 compliant compilers AND POSIX systems (so all unix systems can use it). And so on.
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
Looking for specific C++ environments (compilers, OSes, hardware, etc.) for which there's no standard library (e.g. "x version of gcc for the Nintendo 3DS")
Some C++ libraries such as Box2D or TinyXML2 that aim to be uber-portable use very little of the standard library, if at all. I don't fully understand this approach, however. What actively-used C++ environments lack support for (most, if not all) of the standard library?
C++ standard library support can vary between different compiler vendors and even between different versions of the same compiler. This is especially true on embedded systems and on the various consoles.
By "vary" I mean there can be bugs, features implemented differently, or even missing features. Android for example has a very minimal C++ standard library implementation.
There are many weird and wonderful C++ compilers out there; it's not just GCC and Visual Studio. Nintendo for example uses the Green Hills compiler.
So because of the variety of compilers out there, the best way to support a large number of them is to stick to only the features provided by the C standard library. Many portable libraries even avoid using more modern C++ features.
The only environments that I can think of are freestanding ones (operating system and single process embedded programs). Of course, some developers actively avoid using the STL, but this is more a design decision than a lack of support in the environment. I believe the biggest hurdle in these constrained environments is exception support (which many STL functions throw). To get support for these one has to port a C++ ABI and unwind library (to do stack unwinding and goto to the catch statement). There is nothing stopping one from implementing these required bits, but it is more dependencies which obviously result in bloat just for basic support for something like linked lists. To port the ABI see the OSDEV wiki entry.
There are other dependencies for the newer C++ standards (C++11 onwards). I can imagine std::thread requires a threading implementation such as pthreads. std::chrono will probably need some intermediate layer implemented between it and C standard library time. There are probably more STL functionalities that require operating system support.
The Template part of STL is also quite important. Templates often increase final binary size quite substantially. In the case of a std::list for instance, std::list<MyClass1> and std::list<MyClass2> will result in the specialisation of two different containers. The code will look very similar but will be duplicated to handle their element type specifically. Other implementations of linked lists often use a void pointer to link nodes and then cast it to the appropriate class when required. In this way, there is one instantiated list class for ints, char *, MyClass1, etc. The increased binary size is often unacceptable in embedded environments, but it must be noted that it also becomes a problem when LibA implements LibA::LinkedList and LibB LibB::LinkedList.
The quality of implementations has become less of a problem these days. It is also helpful that GCC targets many architectures so that the new compiler standards are available (as above, you still need to port some functionalities of the STL). The oldest GCC I have used was GCC v4.3 or something like that for an embedded PowerPC device. That was released in 2010 and had full STL support.
In summary, the need for libraries with a very focused functionality set can still help, but in my opinion they decrease how many platforms your project targets if they provide functionalities which wrap OS-dependent behaviour. For raw data structure and algorithm support you can't go wrong. In the end, you have to target some subset of platforms. In C++11 I believe you target 99% of used desktop/server operating systems and 99% of embedded Linux devices. As highlighted in another answer, Android has been a problem but this page seems to highlight to get all the bits required to get a really modern environment.
The Simple Answer is, when you choose not to include STL packages.
With most IDE's if your project has no #include <package_name> items that are calling to the STL, then the STL is not included at compile time.
Although there may be cases where you have to specifically exclude STL through the IDE/compiler
One of the big reasons to avoid the STL is to reduce the final compiled file size.
I work on large scale, multi platform, real time networked applications. The projects I work on lack any real use of containers or the Standard Library in general, no smart pointers or really any "modern" C++ language features. Lots of raw dynamically allocated arrays are common place.
I would very much like to start using the Standard Library and some of the C++11 spec, however, there are many people also working on my projects that are against because "STL / C++11 isn't as portable, we take a risk using it". We do run software on a wide variety of embedded systems as well as fully fledged Ubuntu/Windows/Mac OS systems.
So, to my question; what are the actual issues of portability with concern to the Standard Library and C++11? Is it just a case of having g++ past a certain version? Are there some platforms that have no support? Are compiled libraries required and if so, are they difficult to obtain/compile? Has anyone had serious issues being burnt by non-portable pure C++?
Library support for the new C++11 Standard is pretty complete for either Visual C++ 2012, gcc >= 4.7 and Clang >= 3.1, apart from some concurrency stuff. Compiler support for all the individual language features is another matter. See this link for an up to date overview of supported C++11 features.
For an in-depth analysis of C++ in an embedded/real-time environment, Scott Meyers's presentation materials are really great. It discusses costs of virtual functions, exception handling and templates, and much more. In particular, you might want to look at his analysis of C++ features such as heap allocations, runtime type information and exceptions, which have indeterminate worst-case timing guarantees, which matter for real-time systems.
It's those kind of issues and not portability that should be your major concern (if you care about your granny's pacemaker...)
Any compiler for C++ should support some version of the standard library. The standard library is part of C++. Not supporting it means the compiler is not a C++ compiler. I would be very surprised if any of the compilers you're using at the moment don't portably support the C++03 standard library, so there's no excuse there. Of course, the compiler will have to be have been updated since 2003, but unless you're compiling for some archaic system that is only supported by an archaic compiler, you'll have no problems.
As for C++11, support is pretty good at the moment. Both GCC and MSVC have a large portion of the C++11 standard library supported already. Again, if you're using the latest versions of these compilers and they support the systems you want to compile for, then there's no reason you can't use the subset of the C++11 standard library that they support - which is almost all of it.
C++ without the standard library just isn't C++. The language and library features go hand in hand.
There are lists of supported C++11 library features for GCC's libstdc++ and MSVC 2012. I can't find anything similar for LLVM's libc++, but they do have a clang c++11 support page.
The people you are talking to are confusing several different
issues. C++11 isn't really portable today. I don't think any
compiler supports it 100% (although I could be wrong); you can
get away with using large parts of it if (and only if) you limit
yourself to the most recent compilers on two or three platforms
(Windows and Linux, and probably Apple). While these are the
most visible platforms, they represent but a small part of all
machines. (If you're working on large scale networked
applications, Solaris will probably be important, and Sun CC.
Unless Sun have greatly changed since I last worked on it, that
means that there are even parts of C++03 that you can't count
on.)
The STL is a completely different issue. It depends partially
on what you mean by the STL, but there is certainly no
portability problem today in using std::vector. locale
might be problematic on a very few compilers (it was with Sun
CC—with both the Rogue Wave and the Stlport libraries),
and some of the algorithms, but for the most part, you can
pretty much count on all of C++03.
And in the end, what are the alternatives? If you don't have
std::vector, you end up implementing something pretty much
like it. If you're really worried about the presence of
std::vector, wrap it in your own class—if ever it's not
available (highly unlikely, unless you go back with a time
machine), just reimplement it, exactly like we did in the
pre-standard days.
Use STLPort with your existing compiler, if it supports it. This is no more than a library of code, and you use other libraries without problem, right?
Every permitted implementation-defined behaviour is listed in publicly available standard draft. There is next to nothing less portable in C+11 than in C++98.
In C++, if I write a simple game like pong using Linux, can that same code be compiled on Windows and OSX? Where can I tell it won't be able to be compiled?
You have three major portability hurdles.
The first, and simplest, is writing C++ code that all the target compilers understand. Note: this is different from writing to the C++ standard. The problem with "writing to the standard" starts with: which standard? You have C++98, C++03, C++TR1 or C++11 or C++14 or C++17? These are all revisions to C++ and the newer one you use the less compliant compilers are likely to be. C++ is very large, and realistically the best you can hope for is C++98 with some C++03 features.
Compilers all add their own extensions, and it's all too easy to unknowingly use them. You would be wise to write to the standard and not to the compiler documentation. Some compilers have a "strict" mode where they will turn off all extensions. You would be wise to do primary development in the compiler which has the most strictures and the best standard compliance. gcc has the -Wstrict family of flags to turn on strict warnings. -ansi will remove extensions which conflict with the standard. -std=c++98 will tell the compiler to work against the C++98 standard and remove GNU C++ extensions.
With that in mind, to remain sane you must restrict yourself to a handful of compilers and only their recent versions. Even writing a relatively simple C library for multiple compilers is difficult. Fortunately, both Linux and OS X use gcc. Windows has Visual C++, but different versions are more like a squabbling family than a single compiler when it comes to compatibility (with the standard or each other), so you'll have to pick a version or two to support. Alternatively, you can use one of the gcc derived compiler environments such as MinGW. Check the [list of C++ compilers](less compliant compilers are likely to be) for compatibility information, but keep in mind this is only for the latest version.
Next is your graphics and sound library. It has to not just be cross platform, it has to look good and be fast on all platforms. These days there's a lot of possibilities, Simple DirectMedia Layer is one. You'll have to choose at what level you want to code. Do you want detailed control? Or do you want an engine to take care of things? There's an existing answer for this so I won't go into details. Be sure to choose one that is dedicated to being cross platform, not just happens to work. Compatibility bugs in your graphics library can sink your project fast.
Finally, there's the simple incompatibilities which exist between the operating systems. POSIX compliance has come a long way, and you're lucky that both Linux and OS X are Unix under the hood, but Windows will always be the odd man out. Things which are likely to bite you mostly have to do with the filesystem. Here's a handful:
Filesystem layout
File path syntax (ie. C:\foo\bar vs /foo/bar)
Mandatory Windows file locking
Differing file permissions systems
Differing models of interprocess communication (ie. fork, shared memory, etc...)
Differing threading models (your graphics library should smooth this out)
There you have it. What a mess, huh? Cross-platform programming is as much a state of mind and statement of purpose as it is a technique. It requires some dedication and extra time. There are some things you can do to make the process less grueling...
Turn on all strictures and warnings and fix them
Turn off all language extensions
Periodically compile and test in Windows, not just at the end
Get programmer who likes Windows on the project
Restrict yourself to as few compilers as you can
Choose a well maintained, well supported graphics library
Isolate platform specific code (for example, in a subclass)
Treat Windows as a first class citizen
The most important thing is to do this all from the start. Portability is not something you bolt on at the end. Not just your code, but your whole design can become unportable if you're not vigilant.
C++ is ultra portable and has compilers available on more platforms than you can shake a stick at. Languages like Java are typically touted as being massively cross platform, ironically they are in fact usually implemented in C++, or C.
That covers "portability". If you actually mean, how cross platform is C++, then not so much: The C++ standard only defines an IO library suitable for console IO - i.e. text based, so as soon as you want develop some kind of GUI, you are going to need to use a GUI framework - and GUI frameworks are historically very platform specific. Windows has multiple "native" GUI frameworks now - the C++ framework made available from Microsoft is still MFC - which wraps the native Win32 API which is a C API. (WPF and WinForms are available to CLR C++).
The Apple Mac's GUI framework is called Cocoa, and is an objective-C library, but its easy to access Objective C from C++ in that development environment.
On Linux there is the GTK+ and Qt frameworks that are both actually ported to Windows and Apple, so one of these C++ frameworks can solve your "how to write a GUI application in C++ once that builds and runs on windows, apple mac and linux".
Of course, its difficult to regard Qt as strictly C++ anymore - Qt defines a special markup for signals and slots that requires a pre-compile compile step.
You can read the standard - if a program respects the standard, it should be compilable on all platforms that have a C++ standard-compliant compiler.
As for 3rd party libraries you might be using, the platform availability is usually specified in the documentation.
When GUI comes to question, there are cross-platform options (such as QT), but you should probably ask yourself - do I really want portability when it comes to UI? Sometimes, it's better to have the GUI part platform-specific.
If you are thinking of porting from Linux to Windows, using OPENGL for the graphical part gives you freedom to run your program on both operating systems as long as you don't use any system specific functionality.
Compared to C, C++ portability is extremely limited, if not completely unexisting. For one you can't disable exceptions (well you can), for the standard specifically says that's undefined behaviour. Many devices don't even support exceptions. So as for that, C++ is ZERO portable. Plus seeing the UB, it's obvioulsy a no-go for zero-fail high-performance real time systems in which exceptions are taboo - undefined behaviour has no place in zero-fail environment. Then there's the name mangling which most, if not every, compiler does completely different. For good portability and inter-compatibility extern "C" would have to be used to export symbols, yet this renders any and all namespace information completely void, resulting in duplicate symbols. One can ofcourse choose to not use namespaces and use unique symbol names. Yet another C++ feature rendered void. Then there's the complexity of the language, which results in implementation difficulties in the various compilers for various architectures. Due to these difficulties, true portability becomes a problem. One can solve this by having a large chain of compiler directives/#ifdefs/macros. Templates? Not even supported by most compilers.
What portability? You mean the semi-portability between a couple of main-stream build targets like MSVC for Windows and GCC for Linux? Even there, in that MAIN-STREAM segment, all the above problems and limitations exist. It's retarded to even think C++ is portable.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
Since in some post on StackOverflow it was recommended to try to support multiple (in this case C/C++) compilers if feasible, since this forces you to code more standard compliant and helps finding bugs.
So I was looking for additional free C/C++ compilers I could add support for to my project (it is written C/C++ (both languages combined)). I found Open Watcom to be an interesting candidate.
So my question is: what are the advantages and disadvantages of Open Watcom C/C++ compiler in comparison to other ones (for example gcc/g++, Visual C++ etc.)?
There are probably no particular advantages since if portable code is your aim you would generally try to restrict your code to the standard subset implemented by all compilers. I would say lowest common denominator but that may seem somewhat derogatory.
The advantages of one compiler over another generally lie in either the extensions it provides, the libraries it includes, or the performance of the generated code, if portability is your aim, you are probably interested in neither. It is not the advantages of one compiler over another that should interest you in this case, but rather its adherence to and compliance with the ISO standards.
In its earlier commercial incarnation, Watcom was famously one of the best optimising compilers available; I doubt however whether it has kept pace with processor development since then however (or even the transition for 16 bit to 32 bit x86!).
Its one feature that may be seen as an advantage in some cases is that it supports DOS, OS/2 and Windows, but that is probably only an advantage if legacy systems maintenance is your aim. Efforts to port it to Linux and BSD and processors other than x86 exist but are not complete, while GCC is already there and has been for years.
I would suggest that if you can support GCC and VC++ you probably have sufficient compiler independence (but recommend you compile with high warning level settings (-Wall -Werrorin GCC and \W4 \Wx in VC++). I think that compiler portability is a trivial issue compared with OS portability, and what you really need to consider is cross-platform library support rather than compiler independent code support.
If however playing with compilers is your thing, also consider the Digital Mars compiler. Like Watcom, this also has commercial compiler heritage, having been the Zortech/Symantec C/C++ compiler in a previous life.
Something watcom has in favor if your a 'haxxor' is the fact you can define out of the ordinary calling conventions using #pragma aux. Other than that, I see no reason to even attempt to use such a dated compiler unless you had horrible hardware restrictions. Imo, there are only 3 to worry about, GCC, ICC and MSVC
Some people here use expressions having to do with the Watcom (actually OpenWatcom) compiler being "dated." So what does it mean?
It could mean that it doesn't implement the latest C standard. How
many "non-dated" compilers do?
It could mean that it doesn't provide frameworks as it is primarily
an environment for C and ForTran and somewhere far after that comes a
C++ implementation which I cannot judge.
It could mean that it cannot generate excellent assembly code from
garbage C code.
It could mean that it doesn't support x64 development.
It could mean that the debugger is rudimentary and supports assembly
debugging.
Now to what it does do - in addition to supporting 16-bit real and protected mode code:
It produces excellent 32-bit protected mode code in the flat memory
model everyone uses for the Win32 environment.
Its code generating capabilities are excellent and it's right up
there at the top with more "non-dated" compilers.
It's easy to tune multi-threaded code using its profiler.
How do you "feel" a compiler? I for one don't know how to do that. Is it how the error messages are written? Is it in the messages on the console log?
The world's greatest network operating system - Novell Netware - had Watcom as its development environment. That says a great deal about Watcom. And lest anyone forget: Netware died due to poor marketing management combined with Redmond foul play. It did not die from lack of technological excellence.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that you guys that don't know what you're talking about should perhaps be a little less eager to write answers.
I know I know it's all about getting those coveted points and badges and what have you. And how you get them is irrelevant, right?
The Open Watcom compiler is somewhat outdated and it feels. It is based on what was long time ago a good compiler for making MS DOS games. Currently it is not very standard compliant and its standard library is in immature state.
I would prefer more modern and popular compilers like Intel cc, g++, VC++ or CLang. Not sure about Borland C, haven't tried it long time.
Advantages:
it's free
it's open source. You can alter it and its runtime libraries any way you like
it is crossplatform. You can run it, among other platforms, on Windows and Linux. More, you can build programs with it for different platforms, using a single platform
Disadvantages:
it is outdated a bit, but not that much as in the past
Positive (2)
The code and projects are not bloated like the projects in Microsoft Visual Studio/C++ (Not hundreds of vproj and other files and folders). You can just generate a makefile like in GCC (Which is better to understand than the Visual Projects Makefiles...)
Even the installation takes no big time (on x64 Win 7), in comparisation to 2++ GBytes Visual Project...
Compared to GCC it may seem that it is better to handle
Negative
Clib is missing: strn... functions (strndup, strncmpi etc.), getoptlong
No ARM support (# 1st July 2015)
As Editor you should really use Notepad++, not the internal Editor
I'm in the process of developing a software library to be used for embedded systems like an ARM chip or a TI DSP (for mostly embedded systems, but it would also be nice if it could also be used in a PC environment). Obviously this is a pretty broad range of target systems, so being able to easily port to different systems is a priority.The library will be used for interfacing with a specific hardware and running some algorithms.
I am thinking C++ is the best option, over C, because it is much easier to maintain and read. I think the additional overhead is worth it for being able to work in the object oriented paradigm. If I was writing for a very specific system, I would work in C but this is not the case.
I'm assuming that these days most compilers for popular embedded systems can handle C++. Is this correct?
Is there any other factors I should consider? Is my line of thinking correct?
If portability is very important for you, especially on an embedded system, then C is certainly a better option than C++. While C++ compilers on embedded platforms are catching up, there's simply no match for the widespread use of C, for which any self-respecting platform has a compliant compiler.
Moreover, I don't think C is inferior to C++ where it comes to interfacing hardware. The amount of abstraction is sufficiently low (i.e. no deep class hierarchies) to make C just as good an option.
There is certainly good support of C++ for ARM. ARM have their own compiler and g++ can also generate EABI compliant ARM code. When it comes to the DSPs, you will have to look at their toolchain to decide what you are going to do. Be aware that the library that comes with a DSP may well not implement the full C or C++ standard library.
C++ is suitable for low-level embedded development and is used in the SymbianOS Kernel. Having said that, you should keep things as simple as possible.
Avoid exceptions which may demand more library support than what is present (therefore use new (std::nothrow) Foo instead of new Foo).
Avoid memory allocations as much as possible and do them as early as possible.
Avoid complex patterns.
Be aware that templates can bloat your code.
I have seen many complaints that C++ is "bloated" and inappropriate for embedded systems.
However, in an interview with Stroustrup and Sutter, Bjarne Stroustrup mentioned that he'd seen heavily templated C++ code going into (IIRC) the braking systems of BMWs, as well as in missile guidance systems for fighter aircraft.
What I take away from this is that experts of the language can generate sophisticated, efficient code in C++ that is most certainly suitable for embedded systems. However, a "C With Classes"[1] programmer that does not know the language inside out will generate bloated code that is inappropriate.
The question boils down to, as always: in which language can your team deliver the best product?
[1] I know that sounds somewhat derogatory, but let me say that I know an awful lot of these guys, and they churn out an awful lot of relatively simple code that gets the job done.
C++ compilers for embedded platforms are much closer to 83's C with classes than 98's C++ standard, let alone C++0x. For instance, some platform we use still compile with a special version of gcc made from gcc-2.95!
This means that your library interface will not be able to provide interfaces with containers/iterators, streams, or such advanced C++ features. You'll have to stick with simple C++ classes, that can very easily be expressed as a C interface with a pointer to a structure as first parameter.
This also means that within your library, you won't be able to use templates to their full power. If you want portability, you will still be restricted to generic containers use of templates, which is, I'm sure you'll admit, only a very tiny part of C++ templates power.
C++ has little or no overhead compared to C if used properly in an embedded environment. C++ has many advantages for information hiding, OO, etc. If your embedded processor is supported by gcc in C then chances are it will also be supported with C++.
On the PC, C++ isn't a problem at all -- high quality compilers are extremely widespread and almost every C compiler is directly associated with a C++ compiler that's quite good, though there are a few exceptions such as lcc and the newly revived pcc.
Larger embedded systems like those based on the ARM are generally quite similar to desktop systems in terms of tool chain availability. In fact, many of the same tools available for desktop machines can also generate code to run on ARM-based machines (e.g., lots of them use ports of gcc/g++). There's less variety for TI DSPs (and a greater emphasis on quality of generated code than source code features), but there are still at least a couple of respectable C++ compilers available.
If you want to work with smaller embedded systems, the situation changes in a hurry. If you want to be able to target something like a PIC or an AVR, C++ isn't really much of an option. In theory, you could get (for example) Comeau to produce a custom port that generated code you could compile on that target's C compiler -- but chances are pretty good that even if you did, it wouldn't work out very well. These systems are really just too limitated (especially on memory size) for C++ to fit them well.
Depending on what your intended use is for the library, I think I'd suggest implementing it first as C - but the design should keep in mind how it would be incorporated into a C++ design. Then implement C++ classes on top of and/or along side of the C implementation (there's no reason this step cannot be done concurrently with the first). If your C design is done with a C++ design in mind, it's likely to be as clean, readable and maintainable as the C++ design would be. This is somewhat more work, but I think you'll end up with a library that's useful in more situations.
While you'll find C++ used more and more on various embedded projects, there are still many that restrict themselves to C (and I'd guess this is more often the case than not) - regardless of whether or not the tools support C++. It would be a shame to have a nice library of routines that you could bring to a new project you're working on, but be unable to use them because C++ isn't being used on that particular project.
In general, it's much easier to use a well-designed C library from C++ than the other way around. I've taken this approach with several sets of code including parsing Intel Hex files, a simple command parser, manipulating synchronization objects, FSM frameworks, etc. I'm planning on doing a simple XML parser at some point.
Here's an entirely different C++-vs-C argument: stable ABIs. If your library exports a C ABI, it can be compiled with any compiler that works on the system, because C ABIs are generally platform standards. If your library exports a C++ ABI, it can only be compiled with a matching compiler -- because C++ ABIs are usually not platform standards, and often differ from compiler to compiler and even version to version.
Interestingly, one of the rare exceptions to this is ARM; there's an ARM C++ ABI specification, and all compliant ARM compilers follow it. This is not true on x86; on x86, you're lucky if a C++ library compiled with a 4.1 version of GCC will link correctly with an application compiled with GCC 4.4, and don't even ask about 3.4.6.
Even if you export a C ABI, you can have problems. If your library uses C++ internally, it will then link to libstdc++ for things in the C++ std:: namespace. If your user compiles a C++ application that uses your library, they'll also link to libstdc++ -- and so the overall application gets linked to libstdc++ twice, and their libstdc++ may not be compatible with your libstdc++, which can (or so I understand) lead to odd errors from the intersection of the two. Considerably less likely, but still possible.
All of these arguments only apply because you're writing a library, and they're not showstoppers. But they are things to be aware of.