This is the mail archive of the 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

On 16-Dec-2002, Dale Johannesen <> 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 <>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne         |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.

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