From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Merrill To: Joe Buck , egcs@cygnus.com Subject: Re: (1.0.2) std/bastring.h change -- Why add std/bastring.cc? Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 13:54:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <9802171751.AA16745@modi.xraylith.wisc.edu> <199802171840.KAA06006.cygnus.egcs@atrus.synopsys.com> X-SW-Source: 1998-02/msg00827.html >>>>> Joe Buck writes: >> Both pre-1.0.2 and new'ish snapshots have the Jason's Feb 12 change >> where he adds bastring.cc to bastring.h. Why was this necessary? It >> would seem to cause unnecessary code-bloat on non-ELF (and PE when >> the bugs are fixed) systems. What am I missing here? This was motivated by the undefined symbols on linux problem; the library was being built thread-safe, and user code not, and the two are not link-compatible. In general, the previous arrangement was restricting people from using any instantiation of basic_string other than the usual one. > It is bloat on ELF platforms too: bigger object files, and the string > functions are no longer in the shared library. Actually, they are. I suppose we should resurrect sinst.h. Jason