RE: libstdc++ included?.

RE: libstdc++ included?.

[Smith, Jack]

Oh good, it's not just me who finds this confusing !!

I spent three days (in excess of 10 hours a day)  working my way through
setting up my C++ development environment on Linux. ( and it's still not
quite the way I would like or expect it to be )

What follows is my documentation ( yes I have started documenting virtually
everything I do no matter how picayune, since I have started working with
Linux.  This in the hopes that I can spare someone else the incredible
feelings of inadequacy, low self worth, and intense frustration in their
attempts to help bring Linux into the twenty first century .  I remember
reading somewhere, in some 'getting started with Linux' type of guide - when
I was foolish enough to believe that they actually taught you anything about
Linux - that you should document everything you do, Now I know why; they
were hoping someone else would actually write some worthwhile documentation
so that they could figure out how to use their system  - .) 

I started here:
http://www.gnu.org/software/software.html

well, actually here
http://www.gnu.org
but I thought I would save the hassle of trying to figure out how to get
there from the main page. (hint, every other site on the internet uses the
word 'download' to try to help you find a download, but at GNU you follow
the link called 'software'), the word download doesn't appear on the main
page.


I am looking for a C++ compiler
search this page for the word compiler

OK first I find a Simula compiler (Cim)

then I get to 
'GCC is a free compiler collection for C, C++, Objective C and other
languages.'
Hmm... that doesn't look quite right either, what's a 'compiler collection',
and what do other languages have to do with a C++ compiler
This must not be what I am looking for either.
Continuing the search I discover that there are no other C++ compilers
available from this sight
Hmm.... maybe I was wrong, maybe you can't get the C++ compiler from GNU,
maybe it is available from somewhere else on the internet
(about an  hour wasted here searching for the compiler)

Eventually I grok that gcc is  in fact the C++ compiler.  It just so happens
that it is also able to compile other languages as well. Rather than staying
with the idea that one builds small utilities to do specific tasks, we now
have a compiler which is also a linker, and compiles and links many
languages.

Ahh.......

 I'll go back to the GNU web site and get it from there.
browsing my way to this page:
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/releases/index.html

I am again confused.  What do I need to download in order to be able to
compile and link C++ ??, I 'm not interested in Fortran, Java, Chill, or
Objective C
I guess I need the C++ distribution. But wait, what' this thing called 'Core
compiler distribution...', I wonder if I need that too. (Yes, is the quick
answer )
Where on this page is it made clear what exactly is required to compile C++
code.
Jeez, 8.7 Meg zipped up, I thought Microsoft were the masters of bloat,
their compiler and linker ( not all the gui, and other stuff, just the
compiler and linker ) weighs in at less than 4 meg, unzipped.

Ok, (an hour later) I've got it.

Now, which C++ library version is it compatible with ????
And, why aren't there any links to them, surely the C++ compiler is of very
little use without a C++ library to use with it. ( Or do these guys really
think I write all my own class libraries, and don't take advantage of the
standard C++ library.  When was the last time you wrote your own
istream_withassign ??.)

So back to the GNU software index page.
O.K. 
Search for libg++, 
hmm .... no match, 

O.K. how about glibc
No match there either.

How is that possible, glibc is to Linux what cement is to concrete (for
those of you who have not experienced the joy of working with concrete,
mortar, or other ingenious Roman recopies, you don't know what your
missing), and I can't find it on GNUs sight.
How can that be.
Ahh, I wonder if I managed to get this as a part of the GCC download.
Oh... there it is, under libstdc++
I think.
No, it's just the headers.

What is the use of the headers without the libraries.

Or, Am I again not understanding something, maybe I will read every readme
file regardless of it's location, hoping to find a snippet of addition
information.

Well, that didn't help any.

It's back to yahoo, to search for libg++
Hmm...  that's really weird, here is a site that clearly labels libg++, and
it's even in a subdirectory called gnu, why couldn't GNU do that.
Hmm.. look at that, a readme file, this indicates that I should be searching
for libstdc++
back to yahoo
Hey look, here' s a link that looks promising !!
http://sourceware.cygnus.com/libstdc++/

Why are Cygnus the source for the standard c++ library, Cygnus is run by
Redhat, why isn't GNU (The Free Software Foundation) doing this ?!?!?

Oh, I forgot to get the debugger.

That is the one thing that is easy to find on GNU's site.
in case you didn't think of the highly meaningful name gdb ( what's wrong
with c++debugger, its only eleven characters long, and you can always create
a sym link or alias so that you only have to type 'gdb', or 'g' for that
matter, but wait, 'g', that's going a bit too far isn't it )
oops, wait a minute, I can see 'gdb is a source-level debugger for C, C++
and Fortran.'
but when I follow the link to here: http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/gdb.html
, I can't find anything to download.
Oh, that's because it comes with the 'Core compiler distribution' .  How
strange, perhaps my understanding of the meaning of the word 'core' could
use a little refreshing.  A quick jump here
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm and what do I get when I look up core.
1 : a central and often foundational part usually distinct from the
enveloping part by a difference in nature 
or even better
2 b: the essential meaning
Thanks Webster's
GNU uses 'Core compiler' to mean this: 
'various GNU compilers, assemblers, linkers, debuggers, etc., plus their
support routines, definitions, and documentation.'
Doesn't sound at all like 'core' to me.

I have written to the Free Software Foundation regarding the shocking state
of the ftp directory tree, as well as the descriptions and preliminary
documentation for the various applications and utilities available there.

It seems that there is a small group of people, in control of such issues,
who feel that since they had to spend a significant portion of their lives
figuring all these things out, that everyone else ought to have to do the
same.

I am a proponent of sharing information, not hiding it, and so don't quite
understand why this group of people, who claim to be all about 'openness'
make so little effort to be 'open'.

It is indeed a sad state of affairs that there are a very large number of
experienced software developers willing to donate their time and talent to
the free/open software movement, who are effectively prevented from doing
so, in a manner very similar to the way that Microsoft was found to have
effectively prohibited competition in the PC market.
(See: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/col/col.asp ) Whereas Microsoft
was found to have maintained the barrier to entry into the PC software, and
Operating System market; in this case the barrier to entry is a lack of
clearly labelled, simple, adequate, accurate documentation.  

This is perhaps the main tool used by a select group to maintain their
status (rank) within the 'Gift Culture' of the Open Source Bazaar.  Since
they have the knowledge you need, they can provide little 'gifts' of that
knowledge. thus reinforcing the association between the joy you experience
from receiving that knowledge and your esteem of the individual bearing that
knowledge.  This helps to ensure their rank is maintained.

Many of them will take great offence to these statements, but their actions
indicate that in fact this is the case.  Had these people been truly
interested in sharing their knowledge, and providing easily assessable open
source/free software they would have expended a great deal more effort in
the one area that you, me, and almost everyone else in our positions have
recognised as the weak point:  Documentation.

The single most difficult aspect for me in trying to come to terms with
software development under Linux has been attempting to find what I consider
to be very basic information.

Just wait until I start trying to write programs, I am sure I'll love the
documentation for the Linux Native File System- cleverly called ext2 ( why
not efs2 or extfs2; every other major file system has the letter 'fs' in
it's name ( NTFS, NFS, HPFS), or Synchronisation Objects, or Threads.

I think it's great that all these people love to churn out free software,
but please everyone, write some documentation, otherwise I won't know how to
use it !



> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ivan Martinez [SMTP:ex08@kalman.iau.dtu.dk]
> Sent:	07 May 2000 20:19
> To:	llewelly@dbritsch.dsl.xmission.com
> Cc:	gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject:	Re: libstdc++ included?.
> 
> llewelly@dbritsch.dsl.xmission.com wrote:
> > 
> > On Sat, 6 May 2000, Ivan Martinez wrote:
> > 
> > >       Hello all,
> > 
> > > How should I install this C++ distribution?.
> > 
> > See http://gcc.gnu.org/install/index.html
> > 
> 	I had a look at it and I saw that they are the typical compilation
> and
> installaction instructions (./configure, make, make install), which I
> already knew.
> 	After downloading "GCC 2.95.2, gzip format, 1.6Meg" below "C++
> distribution and updates to C++ distribution" in
> "gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/releases/index.html", I untar it and get a
> "gcc-2.95.2" directory. My problem is that under that directory there
> isn't a "configure" file, so this package doesn't follow the common
> installation way. There are three other directories, "gcc", "libio" and
> "libstdc++". I look for "configure" with a file searcher without
> success.
> 	What am I doing wrong?. Many thanks.
> 
> > Keep in mind that the instructions are the same, whichever gcc source
> >   tarball you use; only the result differs. And you always get the C
> >   frontend.
> > 
> > > Is there any configuration
> > > file stablishing GCC's default include directories?.  Thank you.
> > >
> 
> -- 
> Ivan Martinez (Rodriguez)
> BEng in Software Engineering - MEng student
> http://www.student.dtu.dk/~u990873
> "Got fabes?"

This message is for the named person's use only.  It may contain 
confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information.  No 
confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission.
If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all
copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the
sender.  You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, 
print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended 
recipient. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP and each of its subsidiaries each reserve
the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks.  Any
views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except
where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state 
them to be the views of any such entity.

Re: libstdc++ included?.

[Pascal Bleser]

"Smith, Jack" wrote:
... a lot of stuff...

Well, you definately wanted to have it the hard way...
You certainly bought or downloaded a Linux distribution, didn't you ?

Why didn't you just install the packages for g++ and binutils ??
(GCC = GNU Compiler Collection)
(binutils = ld (linker), gdb (debugger), ...)

It takes about 5' to do so, and you're ready to go.

If you also need a good development environment, you can check out
KDevelop, Moonlite or... Emacs :-)

Ok, TakeFive's SNiFF+ is one of the most powerful and it's totally free
(and almost without limitations - at least none in size of projects or
anything like that) for Linux (the "Penguin IDE" edition), even for
commercial use (!), but you should read the manuals and get used to it
a little (it's really very powerful).

If you want to develop in C++ and eventually build GUIs (KDE or GNOME
- but for GNOME, you'd have to download the brand-new KDevelop... and
it's big :\ ), you really should have a look at KDevelop - it's great!
:)
(even for console C++ stuff)

For example: SuSE Linux 6.4 ships with GCC 2.95.2 (the latest stable
release of the GNU Compiler Collection with C, C++, Java, Objective
C, ...), KDevelop and TakeFive's SNiFF+/Penguin IDE.
It really doesn't take you more than 10' to install those packages
and to get yourself a ass-kicking development box.

BTW:
- you really don't need to download and build the glibc yourself: if you
  didn't already have one installed, you couldn't run your Linux ;)
- libstdc++ - only headers ? Well, the STL consists only of templates
and
  classes with inline methods (because the methods are always very small
  and inlining definately makes them much faster).

And also:
it's really ok that you criticize certain things: that's what makes them
get better, but please make *constructive* critics. No need to compare
Linux
with M$ all the time: it's something completely different, 'nuff said.
Keep on working with Linux: the more time you spend on it, the more
you'll
learn... and the less you'll want to get back to windows (believe me).

--
  -o) / Pascal Bleser          ATOS Payment Systems|
  /\\ \ C++/UNIX Development        Aachen, Germany|
 _\_v  \<guru@linuxbe.org> <pbleser@atos-group.com>|
---------------------------------------------------|
/earth is 98% full... please delete anyone you can.:
---------------------------------------------------'

Re: libstdc++ included?.

[llewelly]

[snip]
> - libstdc++ - only headers ? Well, the STL consists only of templates
> and
>   classes with inline methods (because the methods are always very small
>   and inlining definately makes them much faster).
> 

Actually, libstdc++, when built, contains static and shared libraries as
  well as headers. The library is only mostly templates, and some of these
  templates, like std::string, std::ostream, std::fstream, etc are
  commonly used, so there is a benefit to putting instantiations of these
  templates in a library.

As for getting libstdc++, libstdc++-v2 is packaged with gcc 2.95.2's c++
  front end. If you get the gcc-2.95.2.tar.gz tarball, you have
  libstdc++-v2 . If you get the gcc-core-2.95.2.tar.gz and
  gcc-g++-2.95.2.tar.gz tarballs (you do need both them, despite what I
  told another poster a few days ago), you also have libstdc++-v2 .

sourceware.cygnus.com/libstdc++ is the home page for libstdc++-v3.

libstdc++-v3 has many important bugfixes and improvements over 
  libstdc++-v2, and it may be the standard c++ lib for the next
  version of gcc .... but it is still experimental right now.

Note that libg++ is obsolete, and unecessary for almost all c++ programs.  

As for Jack Smith, it is unfortunate he had such a bad experience, but
  I do not understand how to help him.

[snip]

Re: libstdc++ included?.

[Martin v. Loewis]

> I spent three days (in excess of 10 hours a day)  working my way through
> setting up my C++ development environment on Linux. ( and it's still not
> quite the way I would like or expect it to be )

I won't comment on how you spent your time, and how you could have
reduced that. Instead, I'll just try to correct the misunderstandings
that you still may have.

> Eventually I grok that gcc is  in fact the C++ compiler.  It just so happens
> that it is also able to compile other languages as well. Rather than staying
> with the idea that one builds small utilities to do specific tasks, we now
> have a compiler which is also a linker, and compiles and links many
> languages.

While gcc is indeed a compiler for many languages, it is not a
linker. Instead, it invokes the linker. Technically, each piece of the
compiler supports a single language, only, so there is a single tool
for compiling C, one for C++, etc. It just happens that gcc invokes
the appropriate compiler (and assembler and linker), instead of
requiring the user to do so. It also happens that the C++ compiler
itself is not a "small utility", either.

> Where on this page is it made clear what exactly is required to compile C++
> code.

That's a question, right? As a matter of fact, so far nobody reported
a problem with understanding that page. However, if you had looked at

http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/install/download.html

(directly reachable from gcc.gnu.org, at "Downloading"), it is right
there:

# If you choose to download specific components, you must download the
# core gcc distribution plus any language specific distributions you
# wish to use.

> Jeez, 8.7 Meg zipped up, I thought Microsoft were the masters of
> bloat, their compiler and linker ( not all the gui, and other stuff,
> just the compiler and linker ) weighs in at less than 4 meg,
> unzipped.

You may have noticed that you got the source code of the compiler. I
won't guess what size the source code of Visual C++ has; the binary
C++ compiler, on my system, has 2.7MB; assembler and linker add
another 1MB.

> Or, Am I again not understanding something, maybe I will read every readme
> file regardless of it's location, hoping to find a snippet of addition
> information.

Had you read the download instructions, you had noticed

# Each language has a tarball which includes the language front-end as
# well as the language runtime (when appropriate).

> Why are Cygnus the source for the standard c++ library, Cygnus is run by
> Redhat, why isn't GNU (The Free Software Foundation) doing this ?!?!?

The Free Software Foundation is not developing any software by itself;
instead, it is the contributors that actually write the stuff. Since
this library is not completed at all, it is not being distributed by
the FSF. That will change in gcc 3.

> but when I follow the link to here: http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/gdb.html
> , I can't find anything to download.

In case you still did not find it, perhaps the link 

http://www.gnu.org/software/software.html#HowToGetSoftware

had helped, which leads you to an ftp server near you. Since you found
that the debugger is called "gdb", it would have been easy to locate
its source on any of the FTP mirrors.

> Oh, that's because it comes with the 'Core compiler distribution' .

No, the debugger does not come with the compiler. GCC is a compiler,
not a debugger.

> GNU uses 'Core compiler' to mean this: 
> 'various GNU compilers, assemblers, linkers, debuggers, etc., plus their
> support routines, definitions, and documentation.'

No, we don't. We use "Core compiler" to mean: "compiler infrastructure
for optimization and generation of assembler code for various targets,
including support for only the C language".

> It seems that there is a small group of people, in control of such issues,
> who feel that since they had to spend a significant portion of their lives
> figuring all these things out, that everyone else ought to have to do the
> same.

Your impression is incorrect. While there is a small group of people
actually contributing to the compiler, this group has never rejected
contributions to documentation, to my knowledge.

> I am a proponent of sharing information, not hiding it, and so don't
> quite understand why this group of people, who claim to be all about
> 'openness' make so little effort to be 'open'.

Openness mainly means that everybody is free to contribute, and free
to use the contributions of others. So if you think there is something
wrong with the Web pages, specific donations (of HTML, in this case)
would be welcome.

> It is indeed a sad state of affairs that there are a very large
> number of experienced software developers willing to donate their
> time and talent to the free/open software movement, who are
> effectively prevented from doing so, in a manner very similar to the
> way that Microsoft was found to have effectively prohibited
> competition in the PC market.

This is not the state of affairs. People very rarely have problems
installing gcc for the first time. Most first-time users get it with
their Linux distribution, and don't need to worry with downloading and
installing it themselves. Normally, only experienced users have the
desire to build the compiler themselves, and the documentation mainly
addresses this group. As I said, if other documentation is
contributed, it likely won't be rejected.

> in this case the barrier to entry is a lack of clearly labelled,
> simple, adequate, accurate documentation.

That is not lacking. If you obtain a good Linux distribution, it will
normally include clearly-labelled tools for software development. They
are typically labelled "development", and installing them will give
you a GCC installation out of the box. Furthermore, I think the GCC
manual should get most users started.

> I think it's great that all these people love to churn out free
> software, but please everyone, write some documentation, otherwise I
> won't know how to use it !

I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve with such a flame-bait
letter. I question the claim that there is no "basic" documentation
available for Linux. I believe there is a number of introductory
books; some of those are included with Linux distributions. If you
can't use online documentation (as your consistent failure to look in
the "right" place indicates), perhaps you are better off with printed
documentation?

Regards,
Martin

Re: libstdc++ included?.

[llewelly]

On Sun, 7 May 2000, Ivan Martinez wrote:

> llewelly@dbritsch.dsl.xmission.com wrote:
> > 
> > On Sat, 6 May 2000, Ivan Martinez wrote:
> > 
> > >       Hello all,
> > 
> > > How should I install this C++ distribution?.
> > 
> > See http://gcc.gnu.org/install/index.html
> > 
> 	I had a look at it and I saw that they are the typical compilation and
> installaction instructions (./configure, make, make install), which I
> already knew.
> 	After downloading "GCC 2.95.2, gzip format, 1.6Meg" below "C++
> distribution and updates to C++ distribution" in
> "gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/releases/index.html", I untar it and get a
> "gcc-2.95.2" directory. My problem is that under that directory there
> isn't a "configure" file, so this package doesn't follow the common
> installation way. 
> There are three other directories, "gcc", "libio" and
> "libstdc++". I look for "configure" with a file searcher without
> success.
> 	What am I doing wrong?. Many thanks.
> 
> > Keep in mind that the instructions are the same, whichever gcc source
> >   tarball you use; only the result differs. And you always get the C
> >   frontend.

I was wrong here, and I appologize. According to
  http://gcc.gnu.org/install/download.html (which you should read in
  case I have made another mistake) , you need either

(a) The full source tarball gcc-2.95.2.tar.gz
or
(b) The core source tarball gcc-core-2.95.2.tar.gz *and*
    gcc-g++-2.95.2.tar.gz

Which means you need to to get gcc-core as well.

[snip]

Re: libstdc++ included?.

[Ivan Martinez]

llewelly@dbritsch.dsl.xmission.com wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 6 May 2000, Ivan Martinez wrote:
> 
> >       Hello all,
> 
> > How should I install this C++ distribution?.
> 
> See http://gcc.gnu.org/install/index.html
> 
	I had a look at it and I saw that they are the typical compilation and
installaction instructions (./configure, make, make install), which I
already knew.
	After downloading "GCC 2.95.2, gzip format, 1.6Meg" below "C++
distribution and updates to C++ distribution" in
"gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/releases/index.html", I untar it and get a
"gcc-2.95.2" directory. My problem is that under that directory there
isn't a "configure" file, so this package doesn't follow the common
installation way. There are three other directories, "gcc", "libio" and
"libstdc++". I look for "configure" with a file searcher without
success.
	What am I doing wrong?. Many thanks.

> Keep in mind that the instructions are the same, whichever gcc source
>   tarball you use; only the result differs. And you always get the C
>   frontend.
> 
> > Is there any configuration
> > file stablishing GCC's default include directories?.  Thank you.
> >

-- 
Ivan Martinez (Rodriguez)
BEng in Software Engineering - MEng student
http://www.student.dtu.dk/~u990873
"Got fabes?"

Re: libstdc++ included?.

[llewelly]

On Sat, 6 May 2000, Ivan Martinez wrote:

> 	Hello all,
> 	I just installed the full distribution of GCC 2.95.2 but it seems that
> it doesn't include libstdc++, does it?. 

The full distribution of gcc 2.95.2 *does* contain libstdc++-v2.
  (It does not contain libstdc++-v3, which is still experimental.)

> So I downloaded de C++
> distribution. This one doesn't contain the compiler itself, does it?.

It contains the c compiler, the C++ compiler, and libstdc++-v2 .
  It does not contain java, chill, fortran77, objective-c, etc.

So you have some redundancy amoung these packages; you will only need to
  install one of them.

> How should I install this C++ distribution?. 

See http://gcc.gnu.org/install/index.html

Keep in mind that the instructions are the same, whichever gcc source
  tarball you use; only the result differs. And you always get the C
  frontend. 

> Is there any configuration
> file stablishing GCC's default include directories?.  Thank you.
> 

libstdc++ included?.

[Ivan Martinez]

	Hello all,
	I just installed the full distribution of GCC 2.95.2 but it seems that
it doesn't include libstdc++, does it?. So I downloaded de C++
distribution. This one doesn't contain the compiler itself, does it?.
How should I install this C++ distribution?. Is there any configuration
file stablishing GCC's default include directories?. Thank you.
-- 
Ivan Martinez (Rodriguez)
BEng in Software Engineering - MEng student
http://www.student.dtu.dk/~u990873
"Got fabes?"