Re: libstdc++/6827: Unreasonable dependencies on ctype.h

[Phil Edwards <phil@jaj.com>]

The following reply was made to PR libstdc++/6827; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Phil Edwards <phil@jaj.com>
To: Tony Bryant <brd@paradise.net.nz>
Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: libstdc++/6827: Unreasonable dependencies on ctype.h
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 14:17:00 -0400

 On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 12:42:23AM +1200, Tony Bryant wrote:
 > How valid is the assumption that we'll be using always be using newlib on 
 > cross compilers? 
 
 It's not so much an assumption, rather it's nobody has contributed support
 for any other embedded C library to libstdc++-v3.
 
 "Embedded" isn't actually a requirement here, of course.  It's just that
 newlib also makes a darn good portable C library, sort of as a byproduct
 of being targeted to embedded platforms.  /That's/ why we use it.
 
 If another portable C library were available and popular (heck, even if
 it weren't popular), we would cheerfully support it for cross-compilers.
 
 
 > Is is reasonable for configure to check if newlib is installed, and if 
 > not, resort to the generic interface?
 
 Checking whether it's /installed/ isn't reasonable, because we may be
 building newlib in the same tree as libstdc++-v3, at the same time.
 I do this, and libstdc++-v3 gets built before newlib.
 
 But it probably would be useful to check for --with-newlib or
 --without-newlib, and change os_include_dir appropriately.  The top-level
 configue.in tests for those options, but I don't seem them documented
 anywhere else.  The only question is the default setting.
 
 
 Phil
 
 -- 
 If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
 than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace.  We seek
 not your counsel, nor your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
 and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.            - Samuel Adams