On Mar 30, 2023, Gerald Pfeifer <ger...@pfeifer.com> wrote: > On Thu, 30 Mar 2023, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> How about this, does this seem useful?
> I like it - helpful and easy to understand. :-) 'k, I'm putting it in, thanks On Mar 30, 2023, Arsen Arsenović <ar...@aarsen.me> wrote: > IMO, yes - in fact, the libstdc++ manual even has a use-case for this Yeah, and it also had the means to accomplish that already. -nostdlib++ was for the testsuite, that always uses g++ for linking C++ tests. I suppose libstdc++ now has an alternative it might consider switching to, namely using g++ -nostdlib++ rather than gcc to link itself, but should it? I don't see the upside. Its build process is not broken, it's not even inconvenient, so what's the expected benefit that the change would bring about? As for downsides, I perceive risks of build scripts (e.g. libtool)'s not yet having support for -nostdlib++, and thus trying to use the flag could break rather than improve the state of affairs. It feels like inviting trouble to me. > If you think the flag you added fits here, would you mind also including > this file in your patch? The patch was for the online release documentation, it's not even the same repository as libstdc++, so there's no way to add it to the same patch. Given that, and since I'm not so sure I understand what change you're suggesting to libstdc++'s manual or build procedures, how about you give it a shot yourself? -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>
