verbose terminate() on by default

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Dec 23, 2002, Phil Edwards <phil@jaj.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 01:26:21PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Dec 23, 2002, Phil Edwards <phil@jaj.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > I can't find anywhere in the standard that prohibits us from doing so.
>> 
>> The one reason I can think of to not do it this way is that it may
>> impact the size of applications in ways that would be hard to revert.

> We're changing the initialization of an existing pointer-to-function (the
> currently installed handler), but not definding anything new.  We're also
> generating a reference to a function all the time where we weren't before,
> but that function is in the library, not the final executable.  Am I
> missing anything else?

Dynamic linking is not always available on embedded systems, where
code size matters the most.  The verbose implementation may bring in a
lot of stuff that the developer may have tried hard to avoid using.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                 aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist                Professional serial bug killer