This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: basic-improvements merge status
- From: Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot OZ dot AU>
- To: Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>
- Cc: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, 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: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:13:09 +1100
- Subject: Re: basic-improvements merge status
- References: <20021216235608.GN3138@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <546C6EA0-1156-11D7-8A5A-003065C86F94@apple.com>
On 16-Dec-2002, Dale Johannesen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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?
Yes -- but only if the `-ffreestanding' option is specified.
Fergus Henderson <email@example.com> | "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne | of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.