Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 04:51:53 +0700 From: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Retiring WITHOUT_CXX Message-ID: <13a7b078-9e53-6bc2-a94e-b366ac1413dd@grosbein.net> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfqnHRGZkFCwBP5YcEMK%2BOVnpKAVkgXxe0G3En7YKUraQQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPyFy2DJcDFbSoD8awU03jPBY1YVytf%2Bxk4qpv3pW_GLkOsfWA@mail.gmail.com> <CANCZdfqnHRGZkFCwBP5YcEMK%2BOVnpKAVkgXxe0G3En7YKUraQQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
26.11.2021 4:45, Warner Losh 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. 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?13a7b078-9e53-6bc2-a94e-b366ac1413dd>