On 30 October 2012 00:30, Perry Smith wrote:
>
> On Oct 29, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> I didn't see this before... but I'm still not clear why the distinction is 
> important to you.

I dunno, I just find it helps to be accurate and precise about what
you mean, especially if you're proposing changes to an important
project like GCC.


> cc1plus is needed.  So, gcc can call cc1plus.  What can't I use the term 
> "g++" for that path?  Isn't that how people think of it?  How is the fact 
> that gcc can call cc1plus really significantly important?  We all know that 
> gcc and g++ are just front ends.

Good, I'm glad you know that.  Claiming your C++ code couldn't be
compiled by gcc implied otherwise.

It is significant, because if your changes were in libstdc++.so then
they could not be used when compiling C++ code with 'gcc' unless
linking to -lstdc++, which would be a change in behaviour and a
regression.

> Also, in my original implementation, the new code does get put into both 
> libsupc++ and libstdc++.  It appeared to me that libsupc++ is a proper subset 
> of libstdc++.  In fact, this link is where I got that idea from:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/faq.html#faq.what_is_libsupcxx
>
> Note also that __cxa_guard_* is in the libsupc++ and libstdc++ libraries as 
> well (and not libgcc).  Here is the nm output of the libraries after my 
> additions:

Good, so it's in the right place, *not* in libstdc++.

If you had said you'd put it in libsupc++ not libstdc++ you could have
saved a lot of time, instead of claiming that putting it in the right
place was splitting hairs.

Reply via email to