delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2002/07/27/17:36:24

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: <02b901c235b5$f9fdfcc0$6132bc3e@BABEL>
From: "Conrad Scott" <Conrad DOT Scott AT dsl DOT pipex DOT com>
To: <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
References: <028701c235ac$b1c303f0$6132bc3e AT BABEL> <20020727211653 DOT GA8923 AT redhat DOT com>
Subject: Re: -fno-rtti
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 22:38:38 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000

"Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com> wrote:
> The Cygwin DLL has always used "c++ lite".  Part of the reason
was that
> g++ didn't work too well when cygwin was first conceived so
things like
> dynamic casts and exceptions were to be avoided.  Part of the
reason
> was that the original developer was teaching himself c++ when he
initially
> wrote cygwin.
>
> My preference would be for you to avoid the use of this feature.
9k is
> 9k.  We already seem to grow and slow the dll with each release.
I'd
> rather not make a conscious decision to do this when it can be
avoided.

Fair enough: I'm a bit blase about code size, due in part to the
environments I've worked in recently, but that doesn't mean big is
beautiful.  I noted your appreciation of that recent patch that
removed both code and bug in one fell swoop but I seem to tend in
the other direction (that's "more code", not "more bugs" -- I hope
. . .)

Would the alternative of compiling just the cygserver with rtti be
acceptable?  For the problem I've got (which is defining equality
operators on a class hierarchy) rolling my own code would probably
cost more in terms of space and time than the native C++ rtti.
Oh! and a much more important reason: it would be irritating too
:-)

// Conrad



- Raw text -


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