Re: gcc-3.0 and C++
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
Reply to: