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
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
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
Precedence: bulk

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