http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28718
Georg-Johann Lay <gjl at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2012-09-05
CC| |gdr at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|DUPLICATE |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #14 from Georg-Johann Lay <gjl at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-05
21:35:00 UTC ---
CCing Gaby. He is the only one I know of who is committed to C++ and avr.
(In reply to comment #13)
> All this is fighting the symptoms though.
>
> My point (as outlined in comment #8) is:
>
> When operating as a C compiler, *all* user-supplied libraries are passed
> to the linker *first*, followed by system libraries.
>
> When operating as a C++ compiler, libstdc++ and libm.a are passed *before*
> any user-supplied library. This leaves the users in a situation where
> they are no longer able to supply own overrides for some functions in
> system libraries. Again, all this is in contrast to how the C compiler
> works.
>
> In the AVR case, the situation is only worse since there's no libstdc++
> (yet), and somehow, libgcc is substituted in place of libstdc++ (which I
> think is a completely flawed idea from the beginning).
>
> So despite all the artefacts which leaded to this bug report, I think at
> least the last point mentioned is worth fixing: if there's no libstdc++,
> there's no point in trying to pretend libgcc could be supplied as a
> replacement for libstdc++. (The AVR-related artefacts are now mostly
> fixed after Johann's recent work, the original bug(s) remain(s).)
Ok, I untied the two PRs again and set this one to NEW.
