Re: Retiring WITHOUT_CXX
- Reply: Eugene Grosbein : "Re: Retiring WITHOUT_CXX"
- Reply: Poul-Henning Kamp: "Re: Retiring WITHOUT_CXX"
- In reply to: Eugene Grosbein : "Re: Retiring WITHOUT_CXX"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 22:16:37 UTC
On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 at 16:52, Eugene Grosbein <email@example.com> 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.)