This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 0/2] gdb: Require a C++11 compiler
- From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at imgtec dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" <Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com>, <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:31:39 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] gdb: Require a C++11 compiler
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1477596094-3244-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <2f6931ce-8286-9b97-3a67-8228becfa424@arm.com> <7437e071-2020-2e0d-0f8b-8269767d157b@redhat.com>
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > to mess with either forcing static linking or worse, forcing uses to
> > mess with non-standard LD_LIBRARY paths at run time.
>
> Note that just like gcc, gdb builds with -static-libstdc++ -static-libgcc.
Are you sure? All my recent cross-built `gdbserver' executables failed
to run without a pain of getting `libstdc++.so' in the right place on the
target. Or do you mean GDB proper only? I didn't even realise there was
intention to use static `libstdc++' and/or `libgcc' libraries.
Also I've not been particularly happy with the project moving over to C++
let alone C++11, however I have just decided I couldn't afford the effort
to go through all the discussion, which always takes time pinched from
other commitments. Being a CPU target maintainer only and with my rusty
1995-vintage C++ programming skills -- making it difficult to me to assess
what the advantages of modern C++ dialects might be -- I didn't want to
stand in the way of core developers if they think a move to C++ will make
their job easier, improving code quality and reducing maintenance burden.
FWIW,
Maciej