Re: Compiling w/o gcc?

["David A. Greene" <greened at eecs dot umich dot edu>]

Phil Edwards wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 09:30:52AM -0500, David A. Greene wrote:
> 
>> I guess I'm getting hung up on the fact that this is a _library_.
>> Why is it so difficult to compile just the library bits?

> Most libraries are "user space" libraries.  They can assume the full
> functionality of the features of the language, including the runtime
> library of that language.
> 
> This library, on the other hand, is part of the GNU C++ implementation
> itself.  There are lots of fiddly issues to get correct, some of which
> I'm sure we have yet to discover.

I'm having fairly good success working without g++.  I've
had to edit acinclude.m4, some Makefile.am's and so forth as
well as adding #ifdef __GNUC__'s in some headers.

Once concern I have is the interaction with libsupc++.  These routines
are provided by our vendor.  Because of the conflict, I've disabled
building libsupc++ (through an --enable-cxxruntime configure option
which defaults to libsupc++, similar to the way --enable-cstdio
works).  Obviously this is probably somewhat dangerous.  Are there
any known pitfalls with doing this?  It seems to me that as long as
I have headers that define the necessary bits (I do, from our vendor),
it should be ok to compile libstdc++ with those and link with the
vendor's runtime library.

Am I being extremely naive?  Probably.  But what the heck, I'm
learning a whole lot!  :)

-Dave

-- 

"Some little people have music in them, but Fats, he was all music,
and you know how big he was."  --  James P. Johnson