Re: Once more, C++11 and older 'base' compilers

To: tech-pkg%netbsd.org@localhost
Subject: Re: Once more, C++11 and older 'base' compilers
From: Edgar Fuß <ef%math.uni-bonn.de@localhost>
Date: 2017年10月11日 15:49:10 +0200

> but as you'll end up installing gcc48 at some point anyway, why 
> not use it for C code as well?
Because I'll get a dependency on gcc48-libs and not all the machines 
I deploy the binary packages on may need C++.

References:
- Once more, C++11 and older 'base' compilers
  - From: coypu
- Re: Once more, C++11 and older 'base' compilers
  - From: Jason Bacon
- Re: Once more, C++11 and older 'base' compilers
  - From: coypu
- Re: Once more, C++11 and older 'base' compilers
  - From: Jason Bacon
- Re: Once more, C++11 and older 'base' compilers
  - From: Edgar Fuß
- Re: Once more, C++11 and older 'base' compilers
  - From: Jason Bacon

Prev by Date: Re: Selecting a C++ compiler
Next by Date: Re: 'to_string' is not a member of 'std'
Previous by Thread: Re: Once more, C++11 and older 'base' compilers
Next by Thread: Re: Once more, C++11 and older 'base' compilers
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index