[libstdc++] Option to allow symbol versioning

Richard Henderson rth@redhat.com
Thu Feb 14 14:36:00 GMT 2002


On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 02:26:28PM -0800, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> Say GLIBCPP_3.1? And CXXABI_1 for libsupc++?

Sounds reasonable.

> (BTW, Something I'd been meaning to ask: shouldn't libsupc++ be renamed 
> to libcxa?)

*shrug* I don't know that it makes much difference.  I thought
there was a bit more in libsupc++ than the CXXABI_1 symbols.


r~



More information about the Libstdc++ mailing list