This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Question on _GLIBCXX_HOSTED macro libstdc++ and libsupc++
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: "Amker.Cheng" <amker dot cheng at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Sebastian Huber <sebastian dot huber at embedded-brains dot de>
- Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:22:28 +0100
- Subject: Re: Question on _GLIBCXX_HOSTED macro libstdc++ and libsupc++
- References: <CAHFci2-bi7iEu-TXmsF3EM5UGbqphhLxbu7w9AckMLbiDZJgNg@mail.gmail.com>
On 23 September 2011 09:14, Amker.Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/eh_term_handler.cc, it says by default the
> demangler things are pulled in,
> according to whether _GLIBCXX_HOSTED is defined. the demangler
> exception terminating handler
> are really big, especially for embedded system.
>
> Secondly, _GLIBCXX_HOSTED is now defined if --enable-hosted-libstdcxx
> is given(by default it is).
> This option also controls whether libstdc++.a itself is built for target system.
>
> So, for an embedded system, how could I provide the earlier "silent
> death" handler by defining _GLIBCXX_HOSTED,
> also with libstdc++ built?
>
> Any suggestion? Thanks in advance.
> FYI, all above are talking about cross-toolchain.
(Any reason this wasn't sent to the libstdc++ list?)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43852 proposes a "quiet
mode" which would reduce code size by disabling some of the code in
eh_term_handler.cc and pure.cc - would that do what you want?
I've not had time to do anything about it, but I think Sebastian
(CC'd) has a copyright assignment in place now, and he's provided a
patch implementing it.