This is the mail archive of the
java-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: PATCH: libgcj -vs- libstdc++-v3
- To: Bryce McKinlay <bryce at albatross dot co dot nz>
- Subject: Re: PATCH: libgcj -vs- libstdc++-v3
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at cygnus dot com>
- Date: 12 Oct 2000 22:25:05 -0600
- Cc: java-patches at sourceware dot cygnus dot com, Olivier Louchart-Fletcher <olivier dot louchart at netregistry dot au dot com>
- References: <39E66555.47286ED@albatross.co.nz>
- Reply-To: tromey at cygnus dot com
Bryce> With this patch I have built a working libgcj against a new
Bryce> compiler configured with "--enable-libstdcxx-v3"
This patch looks fine.
Bryce> libgcj won't work with compilers configured with the "old"
Bryce> libstdc++ any more, unless we link libgcj against libstdc++,
Bryce> because the "old" libstdc++ doesn't have a separate libsupc++
Bryce> at all.
Will v3 be the default in gcc 3.0? That is what matters, I think.
Bryce> A better fix to the explicit -lsupc++ would be to change the
Bryce> gcj front end to always implicitly -lsupc++ when linking? Is
Bryce> there any potential disadvantage to doing that?
Will package builders put libsupc++ into the -dev packages or into the
ordinary runtime packages? That might be a disadvantage.
I think we should follow what C++ does and link it into our library.
That seems safest.
Tom