delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2002/07/27/16:29:59

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <028701c235ac$b1c303f0$6132bc3e@BABEL>
From: "Conrad Scott" <Conrad DOT Scott AT dsl DOT pipex DOT com>
To: <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: -fno-rtti
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 21:32:14 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000

Is there any strong reason currently to use the -fno-rtti flag in
building the cygwin DLL?  AFAICT from the archives, the reasons
have been to do with executable size.  From a quick test, it seems
to make no more than a small difference in the size of the DLL
(less than 1%) and doesn't seem to change the run-time size of
objects (tho' this wasn't a very scientific test).  Also, the DLL
seems to work fine when compiled with rtti.

The main reason for asking (other than my usual simple minded
curiosity) is that I would like to use dynamic_cast in some
cygserver code I'm writing.  If the decision is to keep
the -fno-rtti flag for the DLL, I can build the objects for the
cygserver executable with rtti (which I'm assuming wouldn't be a
problem), but given the intertwining of the code base, it might be
"cleaner" to compile it all up with the same set of flags.

// Conrad



- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019