Re: C++ - Why always libm?

["B. James Phillippe" <bryan at terran dot org>]

On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Per Bothner wrote:

> > I notice that every C++ 
> > program I compile seems to have libm dynamically linked with it.
> > ...
> > I'm working on a project that ses C++ code in an embedded environment
> 
> I'm confused.  You mean you're using shared libraries in an embedded
> environment?  And you're using Linux for an embedded environment?

Let me ask this again: Can anyone explain why libm is linked with even the
simplest C++ program?

> That is rather unusual, not to say eccentric.
> Why are you using shared libraries in an embedded application?
> If you are not using shared libraries, then what is the relevance
> of your question?  (If you you static libraries:  None.)

The specifics of my environment or needs are peripheral to my query and
your response, however, since you seem to be so concerned with it, here is
a concise explanation:

For my scenario, "embedded" is synonymous with "has no direct interface or
shell"; in my case, the system has a limited interface accessable via
remote management only, in a headless box with flash-RAM the only means of
persistant storage.  I concede that this is probably a mis-use of the word
"embedded".  It doesn't matter though, the semantics are moot.  The real
question stems from the fact that space is at a premium in my environment,
which is why I want to understand the reasons for adding another shared
library.

-bp
--
B. James Phillippe <bryan@terran.org>
Linux Software Engineer, WGT Inc.
http://earth.terran.org/~bryan