[binarycrusader]

Unfortunately, just the use of templates may require linking to parts of some compiler's C++ runtime in some cases, depending on how they're used.

Also, templates don't always work equally well across compilers. You'd really be better off with pure C.

This looks like an excellent library, so please don't take that as criticism, just an observation.

[AndyKelley]

It sounds like your understanding and my understanding of linking are not compatible. I carefully link only with C and disable exceptions, run time type information, and check the output with ldd to make sure no C++ symbols snuck by. If I'm mistaken about how this works I want to know about it, but I'm still convinced that the generated library is indistinguishable from a library compiled with -std=c99 rather than -std=c++11.

[binarycrusader]

Compilers are free to link their own internal runtime libraries into an executable beyond the ones you explicitly specify.

The only time they are not is if you explicitly use options that prevent them from doing so; in the case of gcc, that's the -nostdlib or -nodefaultlibs as appropriate to your scenario.

I do appreciate that you actually checked the output of ldd.

Regardless, again, only as an observation, you'd still be better off with pure C. Even if you don't use standard C++ libraries, and have eliminated the need for any special runtimes, the rules of C and C++ are not the same, even as of C11/C++11. So there may be subtle interoperability concerns.

Again, this is all merely observation; I haven't yet used your library, only airing potential technical concerns you may wish to research.

Regardless, thanks again for your excellent contribution to the community!