[uClibc]C++ support

Erik Andersen andersen at codepoet.org
Wed Apr 17 11:15:47 UTC 2002


On Fri Apr 12, 2002 at 10:50:16AM -0600, spudmonkey at racsa.co.cr wrote:
> Hello, again,
> 
> I would still like to get support for libstdc++ with uClibc.  It hasn't 
> been my highest priority (it will be someday), but I've been looking 
> around little bit.  And to me, the situation looks like:
> 
> 1. libstdc++ is HUGE!
> 
> 2. libstdc++ depends (among other things) on libio.a and libstream.a.
> 
> 3. In gcc-2.95.3, if you build a *-linux-gnu target, it assumes that 
> these archives are not needed, rather, that libio.a and libstream.a 
> functionality will be provided by glibc.
>
> 4. If you muck with gcc-2.95.3's makefile fragments, you can coerce it 
> to (try to) build libio.a and libstream.a using the source under the 
> gcc/libio directory.  But, the build fails because the glibc header 
> files are out of sync with the libio source code*.  Furthermore, it 
> appears the libio code depends upon acess to glibc "back door" 
> functions (especially if you want multi-threaded support).

Yup.  #3 is addressed by using gcc 3.0.x but I've not managed to
force gcc-2.95.x to build, due to the very problems you mention. 

> 
> The gcc-2.95.3 libio also looks like it lacks large file support 
> (hence, most of the incompatibility with the header files).
> 
> [[ *I can actually get libio and libstream to build if I get the right 
> libio.h and libioP.h from the CVS attic.  I needs versions that are 
> over 3 years old! ]]

Interesting.  Sounds like you have made it farther than I have
then.  Once built, do things work?

> 5. In gcc-3.0.x, libio has been completely removed from the compiler 
> and is only availabe with glibc (Is this true?).

Seems to be.  And rightly so IMHO.

> Finally, the question(s):  Am I on track?  Is this consistent with your 
> understanding?  Has anyone put any effort into creating a uClibc aware 
> libio?  Maybe a "uClibio?"  

To be honest, I'd not considered it.  I've still not figured
out _why_ one needs libio, since it just seems to be a wrapper
on top of stdio...

>                             Has anyone thought about a smaller 
> libstdc++? Would anyone be interested in collaborating in such efforts?

I think an excellent place to start is http://www.stlport.org/
which provides an open source ANSI C++ Standard Library
implementation.  Certainly seems a good place to start.  I've not
really tried it myself, but if someone were to figure out how to
make it compile with uClibc (hint, hint) then we could eliminate
the need to build gcc's libstdc++

 -Erik

--
Erik B. Andersen             http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--



More information about the uClibc mailing list