On 15/02/17 13:48 -0000, E.N. virgo wrote:
So what? Why is that a problem?
Does the libc++abi have better performance for exception handling?
Smaller footprint for RTTI?
More new features, such as C++17's std::uncaight_exceptions()?
Just because there's a different low-level C++ runtime library
available doesn't mean that using it makes sense. Fedora is built with
GCC and libstdc++, so swapping those pieces out has potentially large
consequences.
You might think I'm biased as I'm a libstdc++ maintainer, but I'd say
the same thing if somebody was asking about replacing libcxxabi on Mac
OS with libsupc++, or replacing libcxxrt on FreeBSD with libsupc++:
don't do it unless you really know what you're doing, and can isolate
it completely from the rest of the OS.
As I wrote in another mail, my main intent was shedding some light into a frozen review request. Nonetheless, thank you for pointing out what to consider when mixing things that were not designed to work together. Googling on the subject quickly leads to one of your writing among the top results [1]; I do not in no way intend to “educate” the libstdc++ maintainer, but if you are still not closely following libc++ development (as implied in [1]), maybe [2] could be of some use.
That's about libc++ which is not the same as libc++abi, and they can
be used independently (you can use libc++ with or without libc++abi,
and vice versa).
I've added some comments to the review request.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
