On 19 October 2011 20:53, Delcypher wrote: > On 19 October 2011 17:50, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 19 October 2011 17:48, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> >>> Why? I've not heard of anyone trying to build only libstdc++ before, > > My reason is simply that I wanted libstdc++ with debugging symbols on > my machine as my distro (Arch Linux) seems to strip them. It seems > perfectly reasonable to me to want to build only libstdc++ and not the > whole gcc project because building the whole project is a complete > waste of time seeing as I already have the other binaries compiled on > my system from my distribution's packages. I understand that, and it is perfectly reasonable, but it's not a common case, so changing the docs to support a rare use case doesn't make a lot of sense. If we documented every unusual scenario the docs would be cluttered with info that's irrelevant to 99% of people.
