This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFA: Please review the new C++ demangler patch
Phil Edwards <phil@jaj.com> writes:
| On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 10:55:47PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Phil Edwards <phil@jaj.com> writes:
| >
| > | support can still use it. That's why it was moved to libsupc++, so that...
| > |
| > | gcc a_c++_program_only_using_clause_18.cc -lsupc++
| > |
| > | ...a.out does not depend on libstdc++.so at runtime.
| >
| > May I suggest static link?
|
| You can suggest it, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Maybe, maybe not.
| :-) Why fold
| a completely unused library into the executable?
static link against libstdc++-v3, does not mean the whole libstdc++-v3
(especially the unused bits) is pulled into the executable. Does it?
The contention seems to be the dependence on <string> and <vector>.
| Not only would the executable be needlessly large, the users would still
| suffer the overhead caused by libstdc++'s startup code. That's one of the
| whole points of libsupc++. Static linking doesn't solve the problem that
| libsupc++ was created to solve, and it introduces its own problems.
it isn't libsupc++ that is under debate. I was talking of the
demangler issue.
(Yes, I know the purpose of libsupc++).
-- Gaby