Re: CVS commit: src/gnu/usr.bin/groff

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 08:32:16PM +0400, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 17:04:09 +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 06:15:43PM +0400, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:12:22 +0000, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Module Name:    src
> > > > Committed By:   joerg
> > > > Date:           Fri Aug 10 12:12:22 UTC 2012
> > > > 
> > > > Modified Files:
> > > >         src/gnu/usr.bin/groff: Makefile.inc
> > > [...]
> > > > 
> > > > Log Message:
> > > > Don't link explicitly against libsupc++, just use the normal C++
> > > > linkage.
> > > 
> > > Why?
> > 
> > When using static linkage, it doesn't make a difference. When using
> > dynamic linkage, it stops the redundant copies. libstdc++ is not that
> > heavy loaded with constructors to provide a significant overhead.
> 
> By the same line of reasoning, libsupc++ is so tiny that redundant
> copies (a page or two of text) are not that much to provide
> significant overhead, certainly less overhead than libstdc++.so.

It wastes space and it leaks internals of how ${CXX} works unnecessarily
into the build. That's a good enough reason for me to keep it.

Joerg