Re: GCC 3.2 transition
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 09:24:34AM -0700, rmurray@debian.org wrote:
> 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).
Eh? You should be able to link in just -lsupc++ and get everything
necessary.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Reply to: