On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 19:10:37 +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 08:32:16PM +0400, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 17:04:09 +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 06:15:43PM +0400, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:12:22 +0000, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Module Name: src
> > > > > Committed By: joerg
> > > > > Date: Fri Aug 10 12:12:22 UTC 2012
> > > > >
> > > > > Modified Files:
> > > > > src/gnu/usr.bin/groff: Makefile.inc
> > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > Log Message:
> > > > > Don't link explicitly against libsupc++, just use the normal C++
> > > > > linkage.
> > > >
> > > > Why?
> > >
> > > When using static linkage, it doesn't make a difference. When using
> > > dynamic linkage, it stops the redundant copies. libstdc++ is not that
> > > heavy loaded with constructors to provide a significant overhead.
> >
> > By the same line of reasoning, libsupc++ is so tiny that redundant
> > copies (a page or two of text) are not that much to provide
> > significant overhead, certainly less overhead than libstdc++.so.
>
> It wastes space
Linking against libstdc++ wastes space and time at runtime.
> and it leaks internals of how ${CXX} works unnecessarily
> into the build. That's a good enough reason for me to keep it.
The problem is that g++ links libstdc++ unconditionally. At the time
the workaround you removed was added groff was the only c++ code in
tree and we only used g++, so we added this kludge that does leak
knowledge of libsupc++ into the build process. We now also have
games/dab that is in c++ and doesn't need libstdc++ either.
I guess you are working on clang support, so leaking libsupc++ into
the build gets in your way. Please, instead of always linking
libstdc++ make it possible for a c++ program to express "i don't need
libstdc++" in a clean way.
-uwe
