From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rob Browning Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: What can I do to help? (conclusions) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 15:05:09 -0500 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <871y704ryi.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> References: <20021004132911.GD20754@www> <87k7ky5ggq.fsf@alice.rotty.yi.org> <20021006170804.GA7206@www> <87ofa71nfh.fsf@alice.rotty.yi.org> <87hefzjgng.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <87hefyyjxb.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <874rbwsxih.fsf@alice.rotty.yi.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1034107989 22187 127.0.0.1 (8 Oct 2002 20:13:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 20:13:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17z0iu-0005kc-00 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2002 22:12:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17z0hA-0004gT-00; Tue, 08 Oct 2002 16:11:08 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17z0gW-0004Wh-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Oct 2002 16:10:28 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17z0gU-0004WU-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Oct 2002 16:10:27 -0400 Original-Received: from n66644228.ipcdsl.net ([66.64.4.228] helo=defaultvalue.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17z0bP-0002Lq-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Oct 2002 16:05:11 -0400 Original-Received: from raven.i.defaultvalue.org (raven.i.defaultvalue.org [192.168.1.7]) by defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03B3017EA; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 15:05:10 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by raven.i.defaultvalue.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CD2125FD; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 15:05:09 -0500 (CDT) Original-To: Andreas Rottmann In-Reply-To: <874rbwsxih.fsf@alice.rotty.yi.org> (Andreas Rottmann's message of "08 Oct 2002 18:31:18 +0200") Original-Lines: 27 User-Agent: Gnus/5.090006 (Oort Gnus v0.06) Emacs/21.2 (i386-pc-linux-gnu) Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1478 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1478 Andreas Rottmann writes: > I don't think so, nevertheless the resulting binary will be linked > against libstdc++. However, when I get guile working again (see my > other mail, subject "CVS Build problems"), I will suplly a patch and > can run some benchmarks (there are some, don't we?), if you'd like. What would that do to our "minimal install size"? We use guile in situations where we need to keep things fairly small (aside from guile), and if I'm not misreading, this would make guile depend (on a debian system at least) on libstdc++5 which itself is 700K, and sub-depends on: gcc-3.2-base, libc6 (>= 2.2.5-13), libgcc1 (>= 1:3.2-0pre4). The benefit may outweigh the cost, but I'd like to make sure we have a clear idea of the costs and benefits. What would the alternative be for people using C++ if we *don't* link with g++? Is it still possible for them to write modules? Would they have to write an "interface stub file" or something using extern "C" or similar? -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org Previously @cs.utexas.edu GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C 64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel