On 29 October 2012 16:08, Perry Smith wrote: > > On Oct 29, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >> On Oct 29, 2012 1:54 PM, "Perry Smith" wrote: >>> >>> My original logic in adding them to libstdc++.a is they are only used >>> (called) by code automatically produced by g++ and not gcc. >> >> That doesn't make sense. Both gcc and g++ are just driver programs >> that invoke the appropriate compiler program, which for C++ is >> cc1plus. So C++ code can be compiled by gcc, and doesn't necessarily >> link to libstdc++. >> >> Putting the files in libsupc++ might make sense but libstdc++ is >> definitely wrong. > > You've mentioned this before. I think you are needlessly splitting hairs.
No, I'm not. > The construct that produces the code that causes the failure is a c++ > construct. You're apparently still failing to understand the point. Compiling with gcc does not imply you're not compiling C++. Compiling C++ does not imply linking to libstdc++. So basing which library it goes in based on "compiling with gcc versus g++" is meaningless, and assuming that "compiling C++" implies linking to libstdc+ is plain wrong. So putting it in libstdc++ because it's needed by C++ code is plain wrong. That's not splitting hairs. You're original logic in adding it to libstdc++ is flawed. >The construct that causes the compiler to produce a call to atexit is a static >of a variable with a non-trivial destructor declared inside a function. This >program, does not compile with gcc: [snip] You're wrong. It compiles fine with gcc if you put it in a file that ends in .cc or .C or .cpp or any of the other extensions that tell gcc to run the cc1plus compiler. Please read http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Invoking-G_002b_002b.html It doesn't *link* with gcc, unless you use -lsupc++ N.B. it does *not* need -lstdc++ > But it compiles just fine with g++. It links successfully with g++ because that implies -lstdc++ which implies -lsupc++ But neither g++ nor libstdc+ is required. I'm trying to help you, really. Code that is required by C++ programs to provide language support and basic runtime features should go in libsupc++ not libstdc++, as I tried to tell you in my last mail.
