On Tuesday 17 August 2004 15:29, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> On Aug 17, 2004, at 7:17 AM, matthew green wrote:
> > the one that comes to mind is groff.  why would we want to have
> > it linked against libstdc++ when it's not required?
>
> How would groff be linked by a bone-stock GCC if groff were built in
> the configure/gmake fashion?  We should mimic that behavior with our
> own build tree.

It would have to use ld or g++ -nodefaultlibs/-nostdlib currently which I 
believe is wrong. g++ should know about libsupc++.

Nick