Re: (1.0.2) std/bastring.h change -- Why add std/bastring.cc?

[Jason Merrill <jason at cygnus dot com>]

>>>>> Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com> writes:

>> Both pre-1.0.2 and new'ish snapshots have the Jason's Feb 12 change
>> where he adds bastring.cc to bastring.h. Why was this necessary? It
>> would seem to cause unnecessary code-bloat on non-ELF (and PE when 
>> the bugs are fixed) systems. What am I missing here?

This was motivated by the undefined symbols on linux problem; the library
was being built thread-safe, and user code not, and the two are not
link-compatible.

In general, the previous arrangement was restricting people from using any
instantiation of basic_string other than the usual one.

> It is bloat on ELF platforms too: bigger object files, and the string
> functions are no longer in the shared library.

Actually, they are.

I suppose we should resurrect sinst.h.

Jason