Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 14:45:23 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Retiring WITHOUT_CXX Message-ID: <CANCZdfqnHRGZkFCwBP5YcEMK%2BOVnpKAVkgXxe0G3En7YKUraQQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAPyFy2DJcDFbSoD8awU03jPBY1YVytf%2Bxk4qpv3pW_GLkOsfWA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPyFy2DJcDFbSoD8awU03jPBY1YVytf%2Bxk4qpv3pW_GLkOsfWA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--000000000000e9ac8605d1a3e452 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 11:39 AM Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> wrote: > Several base system components are written in C++, and the WITHOUT_CXX > option is not regularly tested and is often broken. I fixed a number > of WITHOUT_CXX issues in response to Michael Dexter's recent Build > Option Survey runs, but it will break again absent ongoing effort. > This does not seem like a useful endeavour given the limitations it > imposes on the resulting system. > > I'm proposing we remove the WITHOUT_CXX option and have opened a > review to do so: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D33108 We've grown enough C++ support this is likely sane. Warner --000000000000e9ac8605d1a3e452--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfqnHRGZkFCwBP5YcEMK%2BOVnpKAVkgXxe0G3En7YKUraQQ>