PATCH: libgcj -vs- libstdc++-v3
Thu Oct 12 21:17:00 GMT 2000
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.
More information about the Java-patches