mthome@bbn.com (Mike Thome) (10/16/89)
A Plea for Help: With things configured as "sun3", gcc 1.36.0, g++ 1.36.0 (last mod Sun Oct 15 00:44:01), I'm having real trouble getting the bloody thing to do anything useful: Ok - it all compiled with only a few problems (mostly makefile stupidity)... now: (1) as set up, any attempt to use g++ to compile anything complains about crt0+.o not available. (ok - I can fix that...) (2) with crt0+.o installed in libdir, we get multiple definition warnings on ___do_global_cleanup and ___do_global_init in crt0.c and gnulib3.c (ok - the ones in crt0.c are nulls (why?? who knows), zap 'em) (3) Peachy, no? No... now helloworld.c compiles and loads without even a single warning... but where's the executable??!? sulk. -mik (mthome@bbn.com, mthome@thalamus.bu.edu)
dwf@prudence.lanl.gov (David W. Forslund) (10/16/89)
Michael Tiemann writes:
When you next install GNU C++, think of it more like GCC for a new
language that needs all the other GNU tools to work, and less like its
old self, which was GNU C++ not relying on a lot of tools, but relying
on a lot of system support work instead.
While I am at it, note that ld++ no longer needs to exist. The GNU
linker distributed with GNU C++ (and perhaps the current version
distributed by FSF) works without modification or special flags. This
means, among other things, that you can compile C++ programs with
`gcc' (as opposed to `g++') and the right things will happen, provided
you have named your files with the right extension (.cc or .C or
.cxx).
I would like to voice my objection to this style for differentiating
gcc and g++. I believe it is perfectly within the C++ specification
to have .c as a suffix for C++ programs. The suffix should not be the
distinguishing characteristic of C++ programs necessarily. Some other
mechanism should be used to distinguish C++ programs other than the suffix.
--
David Forslund
MS E531
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, NM 87545
(505) 665-1907
(dwf@lanl.gov)