> C++ famously took many years to have a stable ABI.
I'm pretty sure C++ doesn't prescribe any particular ABI for implementations to adhere to. There was even a paper in 2014 about defining a portable ABI, and I don't believe it was adopted [0].
In particular, MSVC uses a different ABI than the *nixes, and MSVC's ABI isn't guaranteed to be stable across major compiler releases. In addition, libstdc++ 5.1 had a significant break for C++11 std::string and std::list [1].
I'm pretty sure C++ doesn't prescribe any particular ABI for implementations to adhere to. There was even a paper in 2014 about defining a portable ABI, and I don't believe it was adopted [0].
In particular, MSVC uses a different ABI than the *nixes, and MSVC's ABI isn't guaranteed to be stable across major compiler releases. In addition, libstdc++ 5.1 had a significant break for C++11 std::string and std::list [1].