On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 09:24:34AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 10:13:17AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 10:49:21AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > > > >> Gerhard Tonn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > The disadvantage is that we must know all C++ packages in advance. > > > > > A large majority of C++ packages depend on libstdc++*; the ones that > > > doesn't are probably libraries which have been linked using cc instead > > > of c++. For example libsigc++-1.1-5 and libgtkmm1.3-14 would pass > > > unnoticed even if they are both C++ libraries. This *might be* > > > symptomatic of libtool libraries, counterexamples appreciated. In this > > > case you'd have to look for typical C++ symbols in the output of, say, > > > objdump -T, e.g. __pure_virtual, __dynamic_cast. In general you'd have > > > to look for traces of C++ mangling. > > > > It should be easy enough to find all the C++ libraries that need to be > > recompiled. First, find all the packages that depend on some version of > > There's also the case that with gcc-2.95, you could cheat and write C++ > without using the standard lib, and not have to link it. This ability is > gone with 3.0 and higher. (note that telnet depends on libstdc++ on > hppa -- but not any other arch).
Eh? You should be able to link in just -lsupc++ and get everything necessary. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
