<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#3333FF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013-07-29 08:48, Arji Cot wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALDr4CiUQBaENQcGBx_+imEkAuO7Agrz9Ex_fwy1fKmGzZmLVw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Well FreeBSD is not Linux, also llvm is a project
mainly focused on Mac OS, and MAC OS is part of the BSD world, no
surprise that if something is supported under MAC OS, it's
probably portable under any other BSD OS.<br>
<br>
The main reason why I'm not sharing your view is simple: if this
is true I can't explain why the llvm project keeps considering
libc++ and libc++abi as "experimental" under linux. I mean if you
can even build the kernel and libc++ really is libstdc++-free and
libsupc++-free what else do you need to mark it as a reliable
library ?<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2013/7/29 Ben Pope <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:benpope81@gmail.com"
target="_blank">benpope81@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On 29/07/13 14:55, Arji Cot wrote:<br>
> Those are dynamically linked libraries, for what you
know you could have<br>
> libsupc++ statically linked to your libc++/abi or to at
least of those<br>
> libraries.<br>
<br>
</div>
Its a fair point, but...<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> I'm not aware of any linux distribution or libc++ build
under linux that<br>
> is just using libc++ without libstdc++ or libsupc++,
for what I know, at<br>
> this point in time, libc++, at least under linux, is
using libstdc++ and<br>
> libsupc++ to provide a complete C++ support and filling
the blanks that<br>
> are still not supported by the library.<br>
<br>
</div>
FreeBSD 10 has switched to libc++ and libcxxrt and is working
towards a<br>
C++ toolchain that is free of GPLv2, according to the docs, it
doesn't<br>
rely upon libsupc++:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://wiki.freebsd.org/NewC%2B%2BStack"
target="_blank">https://wiki.freebsd.org/NewC%2B%2BStack</a><br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
> I think that libc++ will reach the indendpence from the
GNU libs if and<br>
> only if it will provide a complete C++ environment.<br>
<br>
</div>
As far as I know it pretty much does, aside from using
libgcc_s which<br>
may be replaceable by libunwind. In order to link against
other<br>
libraries on the system, some of these bits are required
anyway, it's a<br>
convenience thing.<br>
<br>
I don't think there is very much stopping a linux distribution
switching<br>
entirely to libc++ with libcxxrt and libunwind, dropping GCC
entirely.<br>
Of course, it would be a massive pain for the users when they
have to<br>
build everything from source as practically no binary in
existence today<br>
will work on their system.<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
Someone on this list told me that on Debian jessie (testing), there
is an implementation<br>
of libc++ and libc++abi. I have, accordingly, upgraded my system
from wheezy to jessie<br>
and install those two libraries. That means that apart from the GNU
libc6 library, I am not<br>
using GNU software for software development.<br>
<br>
I have to say that I have linked against libc++ without the need for
specifying libc++abi. Using<br>
the command 'ldd target' shows that it does not use libc++abi.<br>
<br>
Sincerely<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Sian Mountbatten <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.poenikatu.co.uk/"><http://www.poenikatu.co.uk/></a>
Learning C++!!!
I'm an FSF member
Help us support software freedom! <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsf.org/jf?referrer=10888">http://www.fsf.org/jf?referrer=10888</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>