README.qtcopy: -no-stl or no -no-stl?

[Andy Fawcett]

On Tuesday 20 January 2004 11:44, Simon Hausmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 January 2004 10:30, Bo Thorsen wrote:

> > And another thing: Why the "-no-exceptions"? Ever since gcc 3.0.0
> > was out, having exceptions support compiled in is free of runtime
> > costs, up until the point where you actually throw an exception. If
> > people want to write code that uses exceptions, why not allow them
> > to do so? I know there's an old grudge against exceptions in kde
> > code, but there's no reason to cripple peoples Qt, when they might
> > download Qt apps that need exceptions. And yes, there are examples
> > of such apps.
>
> I believe the original reason for the -no-exceptions recommendation
> was not runtime cost but the increased size of the generated code and
> increased memory consumption. Not sure though if that still applies
> with recent version of gcc.

We still support some platforms using older gcc versions too (FreeBSD 
4.x for one, there are probably more). I'm not too familiar with the 
level of exception support on 2.95.x, so maybe this is not so much an 
issue anymore. Any gcc experts care to comment on this?

A.
-- 
Andy Fawcett                                     | andy at athame.co.uk
                                                 | tap at kde.org
"In an open world without walls and fences,      | tap at lspace.org
  we wouldn't need Windows and Gates."  -- anon  | tap at fruitsalad.org