[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GCC 3.2 transition



On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 10:13:17AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 10:49:21AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > >> Gerhard Tonn <GerhardTonn@swol.de> writes:
> 
> >  > The disadvantage is that we must know all C++ packages in advance.
> 
> >  A large majority of C++ packages depend on libstdc++*; the ones that
> >  doesn't are probably libraries which have been linked using cc instead
> >  of c++.  For example libsigc++-1.1-5 and libgtkmm1.3-14 would pass
> >  unnoticed even if they are both C++ libraries.  This *might be*
> >  symptomatic of libtool libraries, counterexamples appreciated.  In this
> >  case you'd have to look for typical C++ symbols in the output of, say,
> >  objdump -T, e.g. __pure_virtual, __dynamic_cast.  In general you'd have
> >  to look for traces of C++ mangling.
> 
> It should be easy enough to find all the C++ libraries that need to be
> recompiled.  First, find all the packages that depend on some version of

There's also the case that with gcc-2.95, you could cheat and write C++
without using the standard lib, and not have to link it.  This ability is
gone with 3.0 and higher.  (note that telnet depends on libstdc++ on
hppa -- but not any other arch).

-- 
Ryan Murray, Debian Developer (rmurray@cyberhqz.com, rmurray@debian.org)
The opinions expressed here are my own.

Attachment: pgp10eFiPn5s0.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: