This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: basic-improvements merge status

From: Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>
To: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
Cc: Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>, David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>, Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, rth at cygnus dot com
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 16:27:31 -0800
Subject: Re: basic-improvements merge status

On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 03:56  PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:

On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 02:44  PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:

On C99 and C++ it is always valid as runtime is required to have it
(and
thats why libstdc++ does it).

According to the C99 standard, this is right, but GCC does not control
the
runtime libraries.  What should the behavior of -std=c99 be, when
generating code
for a target with non-C99-conformant libraries?

I don't know.  It is interesting combination at least (like C without
runtime).

"C without runtime" is known as "freestanding" in the standard, and
is actually well defined.  Is this something we want to support though?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: basic-improvements merge status
  - From: Fergus Henderson

References:
- Re: basic-improvements merge status
  - From: Jan Hubicka

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]