Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 19:05:09 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
Message-Id: <7263-Sat17Mar2001190509+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <3AB39983.30788.52DC29@localhost> (pavenis@lanet.lv)
Subject: Re: Patch for src/mkdoc/makefile
References:  <3AB39983 DOT 30788 DOT 52DC29 AT localhost>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
> Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 17:06:11 +0200
> 
> To use operators new and delete with gcc-3.0 prerelease one should 
> link with either libstdcxx.a or libsupc++.a. As the latest was not 
> present in earlier versions I think it's safe to add libstdcxx.a to 
> command line in Makefile
> 
> Andris
> 
> PS. This and earlier patch fixes build failures but not large number of
> warnings (I removed -Werror)
> 
> --- ./src/mkdoc/makefile~1	Thu Jan  1 22:28:14 1998
> +++ ./src/mkdoc/makefile	Sat Mar 17 16:23:38 2001
> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
>  all :: $(HOSTBIN)/mkdoc.exe
>  
>  $(HOSTBIN)/mkdoc.exe : mkdoc.cc
> -	$(GCC) mkdoc.cc -o $@
> +	$(GCC) mkdoc.cc -lstdcxx -o $@

I think this is not a good idea for djdev to be dependent on libstdcxx
(and the C++ compiler) being installed.  It introduces the
chicken-and-egg type of problem into the library build.

Can't we provide our own new and delete?