This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: libstdc++ included?.
- To: "'gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org'" <gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Subject: RE: libstdc++ included?.
- From: "Smith, Jack" <jack dot smith at csfb dot com>
- Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 13:22:52 +0100
Oh good, it's not just me who finds this confusing !!
I spent three days (in excess of 10 hours a day) working my way through
setting up my C++ development environment on Linux. ( and it's still not
quite the way I would like or expect it to be )
What follows is my documentation ( yes I have started documenting virtually
everything I do no matter how picayune, since I have started working with
Linux. This in the hopes that I can spare someone else the incredible
feelings of inadequacy, low self worth, and intense frustration in their
attempts to help bring Linux into the twenty first century . I remember
reading somewhere, in some 'getting started with Linux' type of guide - when
I was foolish enough to believe that they actually taught you anything about
Linux - that you should document everything you do, Now I know why; they
were hoping someone else would actually write some worthwhile documentation
so that they could figure out how to use their system - .)
I started here:
well, actually here
but I thought I would save the hassle of trying to figure out how to get
there from the main page. (hint, every other site on the internet uses the
word 'download' to try to help you find a download, but at GNU you follow
the link called 'software'), the word download doesn't appear on the main
I am looking for a C++ compiler
search this page for the word compiler
OK first I find a Simula compiler (Cim)
then I get to
'GCC is a free compiler collection for C, C++, Objective C and other
Hmm... that doesn't look quite right either, what's a 'compiler collection',
and what do other languages have to do with a C++ compiler
This must not be what I am looking for either.
Continuing the search I discover that there are no other C++ compilers
available from this sight
Hmm.... maybe I was wrong, maybe you can't get the C++ compiler from GNU,
maybe it is available from somewhere else on the internet
(about an hour wasted here searching for the compiler)
Eventually I grok that gcc is in fact the C++ compiler. It just so happens
that it is also able to compile other languages as well. Rather than staying
with the idea that one builds small utilities to do specific tasks, we now
have a compiler which is also a linker, and compiles and links many
I'll go back to the GNU web site and get it from there.
browsing my way to this page:
I am again confused. What do I need to download in order to be able to
compile and link C++ ??, I 'm not interested in Fortran, Java, Chill, or
I guess I need the C++ distribution. But wait, what' this thing called 'Core
compiler distribution...', I wonder if I need that too. (Yes, is the quick
Where on this page is it made clear what exactly is required to compile C++
Jeez, 8.7 Meg zipped up, I thought Microsoft were the masters of bloat,
their compiler and linker ( not all the gui, and other stuff, just the
compiler and linker ) weighs in at less than 4 meg, unzipped.
Ok, (an hour later) I've got it.
Now, which C++ library version is it compatible with ????
And, why aren't there any links to them, surely the C++ compiler is of very
little use without a C++ library to use with it. ( Or do these guys really
think I write all my own class libraries, and don't take advantage of the
standard C++ library. When was the last time you wrote your own
So back to the GNU software index page.
Search for libg++,
hmm .... no match,
O.K. how about glibc
No match there either.
How is that possible, glibc is to Linux what cement is to concrete (for
those of you who have not experienced the joy of working with concrete,
mortar, or other ingenious Roman recopies, you don't know what your
missing), and I can't find it on GNUs sight.
How can that be.
Ahh, I wonder if I managed to get this as a part of the GCC download.
Oh... there it is, under libstdc++
No, it's just the headers.
What is the use of the headers without the libraries.
Or, Am I again not understanding something, maybe I will read every readme
file regardless of it's location, hoping to find a snippet of addition
Well, that didn't help any.
It's back to yahoo, to search for libg++
Hmm... that's really weird, here is a site that clearly labels libg++, and
it's even in a subdirectory called gnu, why couldn't GNU do that.
Hmm.. look at that, a readme file, this indicates that I should be searching
back to yahoo
Hey look, here' s a link that looks promising !!
Why are Cygnus the source for the standard c++ library, Cygnus is run by
Redhat, why isn't GNU (The Free Software Foundation) doing this ?!?!?
Oh, I forgot to get the debugger.
That is the one thing that is easy to find on GNU's site.
in case you didn't think of the highly meaningful name gdb ( what's wrong
with c++debugger, its only eleven characters long, and you can always create
a sym link or alias so that you only have to type 'gdb', or 'g' for that
matter, but wait, 'g', that's going a bit too far isn't it )
oops, wait a minute, I can see 'gdb is a source-level debugger for C, C++
but when I follow the link to here: http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/gdb.html
, I can't find anything to download.
Oh, that's because it comes with the 'Core compiler distribution' . How
strange, perhaps my understanding of the meaning of the word 'core' could
use a little refreshing. A quick jump here
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm and what do I get when I look up core.
1 : a central and often foundational part usually distinct from the
enveloping part by a difference in nature
or even better
2 b: the essential meaning
GNU uses 'Core compiler' to mean this:
'various GNU compilers, assemblers, linkers, debuggers, etc., plus their
support routines, definitions, and documentation.'
Doesn't sound at all like 'core' to me.
I have written to the Free Software Foundation regarding the shocking state
of the ftp directory tree, as well as the descriptions and preliminary
documentation for the various applications and utilities available there.
It seems that there is a small group of people, in control of such issues,
who feel that since they had to spend a significant portion of their lives
figuring all these things out, that everyone else ought to have to do the
I am a proponent of sharing information, not hiding it, and so don't quite
understand why this group of people, who claim to be all about 'openness'
make so little effort to be 'open'.
It is indeed a sad state of affairs that there are a very large number of
experienced software developers willing to donate their time and talent to
the free/open software movement, who are effectively prevented from doing
so, in a manner very similar to the way that Microsoft was found to have
effectively prohibited competition in the PC market.
(See:http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/col/col.asp) Whereas Microsoft
was found to have maintained the barrier to entry into the PC software, and
Operating System market; in this case the barrier to entry is a lack of
clearly labelled, simple, adequate, accurate documentation.
This is perhaps the main tool used by a select group to maintain their
status (rank) within the 'Gift Culture' of the Open Source Bazaar. Since
they have the knowledge you need, they can provide little 'gifts' of that
knowledge. thus reinforcing the association between the joy you experience
from receiving that knowledge and your esteem of the individual bearing that
knowledge. This helps to ensure their rank is maintained.
Many of them will take great offence to these statements, but their actions
indicate that in fact this is the case. Had these people been truly
interested in sharing their knowledge, and providing easily assessable open
source/free software they would have expended a great deal more effort in
the one area that you, me, and almost everyone else in our positions have
recognised as the weak point: Documentation.
The single most difficult aspect for me in trying to come to terms with
software development under Linux has been attempting to find what I consider
to be very basic information.
Just wait until I start trying to write programs, I am sure I'll love the
documentation for the Linux Native File System- cleverly called ext2 ( why
not efs2 or extfs2; every other major file system has the letter 'fs' in
it's name ( NTFS, NFS, HPFS), or Synchronisation Objects, or Threads.
I think it's great that all these people love to churn out free software,
but please everyone, write some documentation, otherwise I won't know how to
use it !
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Martinez [SMTP:email@example.com]
> Sent: 07 May 2000 20:19
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: libstdc++ included?.
> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > On Sat, 6 May 2000, Ivan Martinez wrote:
> > > Hello all,
> > > How should I install this C++ distribution?.
> > See http://gcc.gnu.org/install/index.html
> I had a look at it and I saw that they are the typical compilation
> installaction instructions (./configure, make, make install), which I
> already knew.
> After downloading "GCC 2.95.2, gzip format, 1.6Meg" below "C++
> distribution and updates to C++ distribution" in
> "gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/releases/index.html", I untar it and get a
> "gcc-2.95.2" directory. My problem is that under that directory there
> isn't a "configure" file, so this package doesn't follow the common
> installation way. There are three other directories, "gcc", "libio" and
> "libstdc++". I look for "configure" with a file searcher without
> What am I doing wrong?. Many thanks.
> > Keep in mind that the instructions are the same, whichever gcc source
> > tarball you use; only the result differs. And you always get the C
> > frontend.
> > > Is there any configuration
> > > file stablishing GCC's default include directories?. Thank you.
> > >
> Ivan Martinez (Rodriguez)
> BEng in Software Engineering - MEng student
> "Got fabes?"
This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain
confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No
confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission.
If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all
copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the
sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute,
print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended
recipient. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP and each of its subsidiaries each reserve
the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any
views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except
where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state
them to be the views of any such entity.