This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [i386] Why g++ _always_ link an executable with libm.so?
Denis Zaitsev <zzz@anda.ru> writes:
| On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 11:30:05PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Denis Zaitsev <zzz@anda.ru> writes:
| > |
| > | a) why g++ assumes that libstdc++ is always needed?
| >
| > Because that is the way it is designed. If you don't want libstdc++,
| > say -nostdlib as explained in our documentation.
|
| This doesn't work out of the box...
If -nostdlib does not work as explained in the documentation, then you
might have found a bug. If you don't explain why it does not work as
explained in the documentation or do not a fill a proper bug report,
the probability that it gets fixed is near to zero.
| But yes, it can be a solution, thanks.
|
| > | b) why is libm _always_ needed by libstdc++?
| >
| > Because libstdc++ needs the mathematical functions.
| >
| > | It's rather strange.
| >
| > I guess it is a matter of perspective. From my part, requiring users
| > to explicitly supply -lm is a bug. Simply because the mathematical
| > functions are part of the standard library; we do not require users to
| > say -lstr when they use strcpy() and friend; we do not require users
| > to say -lstdio when they use fprintf() and friends. YMMV.
|
| Ok, but do we force users to use libm every time libc is used?
What is libc? How do you define it?
| No, we
| don't. Of course, we don't. And I emphasised the word 'always':
| not _every_ routine from libstdc++ need libm, but it always
| required...
The C++ standard library is a whole entity (minus the "freestanding"
part) that is hard to split in meaningfully independent parts.
Personnaly, I have zilk interest in splitting it into zillions
arbitrary parts (or maintain such splits) and require users to supply
zillions -lxxx switches.
As a C++ user, when I say
copy(istream_iterator<int>(cin), istream_iterator<int>(),
back_insert(v));
I have no idea of which of those zillions parts are involved
underneath, I do not want to know, and a fortiori I do not want to
be required to supply a cabalistic combination of switches to get it
work. The compiler is better at that than I.
-- Gaby