Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 17:16:37 -0500 From: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> To: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Retiring WITHOUT_CXX Message-ID: <CAPyFy2DUuoT9q6HSccZL_kGJVtT%2BWg=1i0inhpwCvY0FBEtoFg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <13a7b078-9e53-6bc2-a94e-b366ac1413dd@grosbein.net> References: <CAPyFy2DJcDFbSoD8awU03jPBY1YVytf%2Bxk4qpv3pW_GLkOsfWA@mail.gmail.com> <CANCZdfqnHRGZkFCwBP5YcEMK%2BOVnpKAVkgXxe0G3En7YKUraQQ@mail.gmail.com> <13a7b078-9e53-6bc2-a94e-b366ac1413dd@grosbein.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 at 16:52, Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> wrote: > > 26.11.2021 4:45, Warner Losh wrote: > > > > We've grown enough C++ support this is likely sane. > > How embedded-friendly is this? I mean a difference in required space for self-contained small file system. > Comparing with 8.x/9.x, minimal FreeBSD image become pretty big. I'm not really concerned about this with respect specifically to WITHOUT_CXX. Of course it's important to support small images, but we need to do so via pkgbase, nanobsd, etc., rather than poorly-maintained build knobs. (Knobs like WITHOUT_INCLUDES are built into our make infrastructure, and are fine.)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPyFy2DUuoT9q6HSccZL_kGJVtT%2BWg=1i0inhpwCvY0FBEtoFg>