[Patch] libstdc++/16612

[Paolo Carlini]

Hi Phil,

>The autoconf macro description ("Check for...") and the --help output string
>are somewhat redundant and uninformative, given the name of the option.
>That is, I expect "--enable-foo" to enable foo; a help string that says
>"this enables foo" kind of falls short.  :-)
>  
>
I see...

>If they said something about "empty strings in per-process static memory,"
>that would probably be enough.
>  
>
I get you point, but actually will be the other way round ;) I mean, 
this option, will *disable* "empty strings in per-process static 
memory", instead puts "empty strings in dynamically allocated memory" 
Whould you agree with this sort of help message?!? Or could you possibly 
suggest good-english wording for the contrary meaning?!?

>>+ <dt><code>--enable-fully-dynamic-string  </code></dt>
>>+ <dd><p>This option enables a special version of basic_string avoiding
>>+        the optimization that allocates empty objects in static memory.
>>+	Mostly useful together with shared memory allocators.
>>+     </p>
>>+ </dd>
>>    
>>
>Could this, and maybe the autoconf macro description, either mention the PR
>which started the whole thing, and/or link into the mailing list archives?
>As it stands, a user reading these descriptions might legitimately wonder,
>"under what conditions would I use this option, and do I need to use it now?"
>  
>
Completely agreed about the autoconf macro description mentioning the 
PR, which
includes a rather informative audit trail.

Paolo.