On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 03:09:00PM -0400, Nico Weber via cfe-commits wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 07:06:25PM -0400, Nico Weber via cfe-commits wrote:
> > > If you need this behavior for something, that sounds like
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 07:06:25PM -0400, Nico Weber via cfe-commits wrote:
> > If you need this behavior for something, that sounds like something a
> > -nodefaultlibs++ could do. -nostdlib++ is really meant to disable
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 07:06:25PM -0400, Nico Weber via cfe-commits wrote:
> If you need this behavior for something, that sounds like something a
> -nodefaultlibs++ could do. -nostdlib++ is really meant to disable the c++
> stdlib and nothing else.
But the -lm is only there because -lc++ alone
On Jul 23, 2017 4:51 PM, "Joerg Sonnenberger" wrote:
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 03:17:32PM -0400, Nico Weber via cfe-commits wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via Phabricator via
> cfe-commits wrote:
>
> > joerg added a comment.
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 03:17:32PM -0400, Nico Weber via cfe-commits wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via Phabricator via
> cfe-commits wrote:
>
> > joerg added a comment.
> >
> > I don't really like this.
>
> That's cool, you don't need
But if you have alternative ideas on how to address this use case
(statically linking a custom libc++ without having to duplicate all the
default libs, in particular built-in ones like libbuiltin-rt), I'm happy to
hear them, or course :-)
On Jul 23, 2017 3:17 PM, "Nico Weber"
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via Phabricator via
cfe-commits wrote:
> joerg added a comment.
>
> I don't really like this.
That's cool, you don't need to use the flag.
> The reason why -lm is added explicitly on many targets is because the