No doubt this will likely generate a lot of
criticism...hopefully that is where it will end.
I want to make it clear up front; A great deal of what I have
written below is based on a feeling...something that doesn't
have any sort of "empirical" evidence behind it...or as some
would say "it is not grounded on anything
This is acceptable to me...as I have yet to find a feeling that
can be called "empiraclly authoritative" (an oxymoron if ever I
heard of one, especially when it comes to talking about
feelings). In my experience when something doesn't seem
"empiraclly authoritative" it is usually a personal warning.
On 8 Dec 2000, at 7:06, the Illustrious Earnie Boyd wrote:
> > >
> > > "Should we distribute dynamic libstdc++ with gcc or
> > > as
> > > the separate package?"
> > >
> I've mixed views and have been trying to narrow down to answer
> this. My stance is to tends to be to use static libraries as an
> update in a dynamic library can't change the operation of the
>However, there are times when dynamic libraries are
> useful and IMO this is one of those times. As the libstdc++
> affects all C++ binaries then all C++ binaries will benefit by
> one being smaller in size, two being immediately updateable when
> bugs are fixed.
I understand...however, if minimizing the size of the
executables is important (and I agree that it is), then it would
seem that as a side-effect we would need to change default
activity of compile/link phase to strip excess symbols...we
already give the option for this, but it is not a default
characteristic of mingw-gcc or of ld.
The last thing I want to do is re-invent the msvc/c++
compiler in the form of mingw. And, down the road, it doesn't
seem so unreasonable to think that, "hey, since we already have
libstdc++ available as a .dll, why not simply make mingw ld
default to .dll lib generation?" This doesn't feel right.
> Yes, we should provide a libstdc++.dll.a and accompanying
> libstdc++.dll as well as a libstdc++.a for static linking. This
> shouldn't be a separate package, it should be part of the
> standard package. Cross compilers shouldn't have a problem with
> dll's as they must use the executable that builds for the target.
Yes, they shouldn't, but what if the cross-compiler can't deal
with .dlls? Doesn't that mean that we become responsible for
supplying the necessary .dll support and subsequently
maintaining that support?
(Not that I am afraid of supporting such a thing...I have a
great deal of confidence in the mingw developers team and am
certain that it can be done if someone should choose to do so.)
Case in point...it's been awhile, but afaik, Linux (as an
example) has no way to deal with or test .dlls on the local,
plain vanilla platform, nor can Linux (exception=Cygwin for
Linux), in the form of server, typically deal with .dlls on a
client machine w/o a lot of added support. Who is to supply
Default performance characteristics for plain vanilla Linux
based platform (more and more common these days) don't allow for
The closest that a plain vanilla Linux OS can get to a .dll
file is the .so libs. Is there a .so distribution lib for
libstdc++? If not, why not?
Mingw ld can generate .so files natively, it can not, however
test those .so files natively. Thus, any .so files that are
generated would need to be tested on the targetted Linux
platform, wouldn't they?
Finally, afaik, there are two different types of .dlls that may
be generated under Mingw.
The MS compatible .dll and the Mingw compatible .dll.
Which version would the libstdc++.dll be compatible with?
Mingw or msvc? It can't be both unless we supply both an ms
compatible .dll AND a mingw compatible .dll for libstdc++ libs.
If we do supply these, it would then, afaict, become necessary
to support both of them as well as to differentiate between them
within the gcc-runtime distribution.
In closing, I will yield to majority decision here, I just want
to make it clear that I have some serious doubts about the
practicality of including libstdc++.dll as part of the mingw
runtime or mingw-gcc distribution.
> Earnie Boyd
> --- <http://earniesystems.safeshopper.com> ---
> --- Cygwin: POSIX on Windows <http://gw32.freeyellow.com/> ---
> --- Minimalist GNU for Windows <http://www.mingw.org/> ---
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
> _______________________________________________ MinGW-dvlpr
> mailing list MinGW-dvlpr@...
Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.