This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ - Why always libm?
- To: Per Bothner <bothner at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: C++ - Why always libm?
- From: "B. James Phillippe" <bryan at terran dot org>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 13:55:24 -0700 (PDT)
- cc: egcs Mailing List <egcs at cygnus dot com>
- Organization: Terran.ORG/LinuxWorld.NET
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