On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Jason Williams wrote: > Fair enough; it's just that "old" gcc never seemed to require that. > Presumably I was incorrect in relying on that behaviour.
I believe that it is incorrect to rely on that. It's possible that the new operator was contained in libgcc in 2.95.4, meaning that it could satisfy the symbol without libstdc++ (I just checked...2.95.x's libgcc has a builtin new operator, while 3.0.x doesn't, which explains why it worked with 2.95.x). In either case, it's much safer to use the g++ invocation rather than gcc when compiling C++ code. I tried your example with both gcc 2.95.x and 3.0.x and confirmed the above. With 2.95.4 (unstable), the new operator is, in fact, using __builtin_new, which is linked into the binary from libgcc.a. 3.0's libgcc has no builtin new, so it needs libstdc++ to satisfy the symbol at link time. In fact, the 2.95.4 version isn't linked to libstdc++ at all, fyi, since it uses no symbols from it. Hope this helps... C
