Date:	Wed, 21 Jan 1998 15:39:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id:	<199801212339.PAA05804@adit.ap.net>
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>, Robert Hoehne <robert DOT hoehne AT gmx DOT net>
From:	Nate Eldredge <eldredge AT ap DOT net>
Subject:	Re: gcc 2.8.0
Cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

At 03:40  1/21/1998 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>Are you sure you need to port libg++?  In the announcement of gcc
>2.8.0 I saw a note saying that libg++ is now deprecated and should
>not be used for development, and that libstdc++ is the replacement.
>maybe porting libstdc++ is easier?
>
>One thing that I haven't got the time to check is what are the
>differences between these two distributions.  For starters, libg++ is
>*much* larger than libstdc++.  I wonder what did they leave out?
Perhaps a stupid guess, but I always believed that libstdc++ was the
classes, etc required by ANSI (or whatever the standard is) C++, while
libg++ was an assortment of useful classes that the GNU people wrote as
extensions. Maybe they decided their extensions weren't worth maintaining
anymore. (Wow, *removing* features for a change? ;)

Nate Eldredge
eldredge AT ap DOT net

- Raw text -