From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 8A935388A404; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 09:24:53 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 8A935388A404 From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/100057] There are no freestanding C++ Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 09:24:53 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: build X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: resolution bug_status Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 09:24:53 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D100057 Jonathan Wakely changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED --- Comment #23 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #0) > There are no freestanding C++ :) You are confused. The fact that libstdc++ has a freestanding mode which sti= ll has certain requirements doesn't mean "there are no freestanding C++". GCC is just one implementation, you can't make such a generalization about = "no freestanding C++" from one implementation. > I am perfectly correct. No, you are confused. (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #10) > I guess nobody ever tries to build freestanding before. It just does not > work tbh. Have you tried building the compiler first, without building libstdc++ at a= ll, then using that compiler to build the freestanding libstdc++? Lots of people build with newlib, every day. Instead of assuming nobody ever does it and it's broken until you come along, maybe assume you're doing it wrong. (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #19) >That is why people are not using C++ for writing operating system. There's a chicken and egg situation. Nobody is doing it, so the configurati= on to do it is not widely used and not as smooth as the default hosted configuration. If you want it to work, try being constructive instead of an irratating pri= ck. (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #12) > Then it is libquadmath's issue. no errno.h So --disable-libquadmath (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #20) > The freestanding C++ is an absolute joke. Not just because of the reason = of > exception handling. The GCC team did a horrible job in the past. I've told you before that your attitude makes people ignore you and dismiss= you as an irritating person that nobody wants to work with or help. If you think GCC is so bad, create your own compiler and stop bothering us = and insulting people. Your ability to communicate politely and reasonably is an absolute joke and every time I see you've reported a new "bug" I die a little bit inside. Instead of reporting a bug and then spamming it with new comments every ti= me you try something different, spend some time trying things FIRST and then report a focused, detailed bug about specific issues. Nobody wants to read your stream of consciousness rants. I'm closing this as invalid. Report a separate bug for concrete issues like "please add a new option for= a freestanding build that implies --disable-hosted-libstdcxx=20 --disable-libquadmath and all other relevant options" (which will probably = be closed as INVALID or WONTFIX).=