Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:45:04 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Daniel Eischen <deischen@FreeBSD.org>, phk@phk.freebsd.dk, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: Summary: experiences with NanoBSD, successes and nits on a Soekris 4801 Message-ID: <20050621044504.GD93634@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <20050620202808.N26664@fledge.watson.org> References: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0506201515210.11816-100000@sea.ntplx.net> <20050620202808.N26664@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 08:29:19PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Daniel Eischen wrote: > I'm trying to remember the reason NO_CXX actually exists -- I believe it's > because our sparc64 port didn't have working C++ for some period of time, > so we didn't build C++ (and its dependencies). I created it in March 2000 to make GCC hacking and the process of upgrading easier for the GCC importer. > It could well be that NO_CXX is OBE, and we can eliminate it entirely? > I.e., C++ support libraries and applications are now a basic > requirement as DHCP is broken without them? It wasn't really designed as a nob for most people to set. Its use by NanoBSD is probably a misuse of it. There should be a NO_TOOLCHAIN or NO_TOOLCHAIN_CXX knob for what NO_CXX is probably being used for. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050621044504.GD93634>