From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Earnie Boyd" To: gnu-win32@cygnus.com Subject: Re: c++ vs g++ [Re: Gcc compiler b18 newbie probs] Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 04:37:00 -0000 Message-id: <19971211123624.27195.qmail@hotmail.com> X-SW-Source: 1997-12/msg00289.html Thanks Mumit, I didn't realize that the c++ option was available. I believe however that the c++.exe and g++.exe supplied from cygnus are the same file with different names. I base this on exec "cmp -c /bin/g++.exe /bin/c++.exe" not returning anything. - \\||// ---o0O0--Earnie--0O0o---- -earnie_boyd@hotmail.com- ------ooo0O--O0ooo------- >To: gnu-win32@cygnus.com >Subject: c++ vs g++ [Re: Gcc compiler b18 newbie probs] >Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 20:19:15 -0600 >From: Mumit Khan > >"Earnie Boyd" writes: >> >> > - use the right compiler driver to compile/link programs. For C >> programs, >> > use gcc, for C++ use c++ and for F77 use g77. >> >> ^^^ shouldn't this be g++ >> > >Historically these two had a subtle difference: g++ implicitly linked >with libg++ while c++ did not. With egcs-1.00, they're equivalent; even >before the advent of egcs, I never considereed libg++ as a standard >package, and preferred not to use g++ as the C++ driver. I guess I >simply don't like unneeded libraried implicitly linked in that standard >conforming code(*) does not need. > >I haven't checked the last FSF gcc-2.8.0 snapshot to check if the >distinction is still there or not. > >Mumit > >* Now we can finally (almost) use the term "standard conforming" when >talking about C++. What a relief. >- >For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to >"gnu-win32-request@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help". > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com - For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to "gnu-win32-request@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help".