Message-ID:	<34C7BC2E.8198E559@gmx.net>
Date:	Thu, 22 Jan 1998 22:37:50 +0100
From:	Robert Hoehne <robert DOT hoehne AT gmx DOT net>
Organization:	none provided
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: gcc 2.8.0
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 980121154008 DOT 27671E-100000 AT is>

Eli Zaretskii wrote :
> 
> Are you sure you need to port libg++?  In the announcement of gcc
No.
> 2.8.0 I saw a note saying that libg++ is now deprecated and should
> not be used for development, and that libstdc++ is the replacement.
> maybe porting libstdc++ is easier?

Exact, it is easier. So I will do this separate first.

> One thing that I haven't got the time to check is what are the
> differences between these two distributions.  For starters, libg++ is
> *much* larger than libstdc++.  I wonder what did they leave out?

They leave out all that classes, which are really GPL'd. To illustrate
it,
I include here header names, so you can get a guess, what is included in
libg++
and not in libstdc++

AllocRing.h Binomial.h BitSet.h BitString.h Complex.h CursesW.h
Erlang.h Fix.h Fix16.h Fix24.h Geom.h GetOpt.h

and so on ...

Robert

- Raw text -