Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 13:26:36 -0500 (CDT) From: Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net> To: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: (FWD) Re: Progs linked against libstdc++ dead... Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9904291305480.2845-100000@fly.HiWAAY.net> In-Reply-To: <199904291712.KAA19544@vashon.polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, John Polstra wrote: #> ----- Forwarded message from Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net> ----- #> #> Since the vtable thunks are more efficient and will eventually #> be the default, we might ought to stick with them. David mentioned #> that there might be problems with them, but with enough developers #> using -current to beat out the kinks we should be able to resolve #> them in short order. # # I doubt it. The problems, according to the egcs team, are compiler # bugs. It's unlikely any of us could fix them without going into a # trance, smoking the g++ pipe three times a day, and abstaining from # sexual relations for a year. Fair enough, but the problem that really concerns me is that all the C++ libraries (and the programs that use them) will have to be recompiled when we make the switch. Is there a programatic way to tell which vtable implementation a library was compiled with? The compile-time error message doesn't count. Turning the new vtable implementation on at any time now or in the future is going to cause confusion. I guess the real question is will turning it on by default now make for less problems than waiting a month or two and then flipping the switch? -steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSF.4.10.9904291305480.2845-100000>