This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: basic-improvements merge status
- From: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- 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 00:56:08 +0100
- Subject: Re: basic-improvements merge status
- References: <20021216224439.GF3138@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <164D0268-114E-11D7-8A5A-003065C86F94@apple.com>
>
> 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).
It would be best to push these into libgcc when runtime does not
overwrite these. Is that doable?
Honza