From:	pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
To:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Sat, 17 Mar 2001 19:13:04 +0200
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: Patch for src/mkdoc/makefile
Message-ID:	<3AB3B740.14139.C70CE4@localhost>
In-reply-to:	<7263-Sat17Mar2001190509+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
References:	<3AB39983 DOT 30788 DOT 52DC29 AT localhost> (pavenis AT lanet DOT lv)
X-mailer:	Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On 17 Mar 2001, at 19:05, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
> > Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 17:06:11 +0200
> 
> I think this is not a good idea for djdev to be dependent on libstdcxx
> (and the C++ compiler) being installed.  It introduces the
> chicken-and-egg type of problem into the library build.
> 
> Can't we provide our own new and delete?

It's already C++ (extension .cc and classes used). So we require 
gppXXXXb.zip anyway. gppXXXXb.zip commes with libstdcxx.a (and 
perhaps gcc-3.0 will come also with renamed libsupc++.a). So I think 
my patch doesn't introduce any new dependences beyond existing 
ones

I don't think we should consider situation one has installed C++ 
compiler and removed libstdcxx.a ...

Andris

- Raw text -