I think you're getting a bit confused libsupc++ is the default now, from GNU
libcxxabi is the bloated runtime from Apple libcxxrt is the faster c++ runtime, PathScale+David Chisnall, which PathScale and FreeBSD use by default. We don't need a version number because it's pretty much rock solid stable for a while. I'd encourage you to consider libcxxrt for at least the code size and performance reasons. Build it and you'll see. Locally my unoptimized libcxxrt.so is like 88K. How much is your libcxxabi (static and shared) 88K /opt/enzo-2016-06-26/lib/6.0.983/x8664/64/libcxxrt.so 140K /opt/enzo-2016-06-26/lib/6.0.983/x8664/64/libcxxrt.a // This seems larger than I remember and I need to check why. https://github.com/pathscale/libcxxrt On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Lei Zhang <zhanglei.ap...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2016-08-19 10:07 GMT+08:00 <cbergst...@pathscale.com>: >> That seems a lot like what we've already done. I guess a GSOC student is >> working on the libcxxabi piece. > > I am that GSoC student :) > > I'm currently trying to push libc++abi to replace libcxxrt as the > default runtime: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/2048 > > The reason is I think libc++abi blends in more naturally with other > LLVM components, and it has a clear version number as opposed to > libcxxrt. > >> The only advantage to using our runtime, libcxxrt, is performance and code >> size. > > Honestly I don't know what essential difference these two libs have; I > can't find any decent comparison of them on the internet. Do you have > some real numbers to show the difference in performance and code size? > > > Lei >
