On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 6:28 AM, Simon Josefsson<si...@josefsson.org> wrote: > Bruno Haible <br...@clisp.org> writes: > >> Should the 'regex' module (and possibly other modules which require C >> syntax) depend on the 'no-c++' module? We can open a poll on it. > > I don't understand the rationale for the no-c++ module, let alone making > any other modules depend on it. > > What is the issue with compiling C code with a C compiler and C++ code > with a C++ compiler? That seems to be me the proper solution.
Some packages are compilable with both C (production) and C++ (extra compilation time type checking and run-time verification for debugging). when such a package uses code from gnulib, it wants to compile it with the compiler ($(CC)) it uses for the rest of the package, i.e., when compiling with CC=C, it compiles the imported gnulib code with C, ahen compiling with CC=C++, it compiles the imported gnulib code with with C++. when the imported gnulib code cannot be compiled with C++ (e.g., regexp), this causes problems. > Compiling C code with a C++ compiler seems like a good recipe for > problems, and I don't think it is something gnulib should force on users > unless there is a compelling use-case. the "forcing" goes the other way around. the user of gnulib forces C++ on gnulib code, and gnulib should use no-cxx (when necessary) to cope with it. -- Sam Steingold <http://sds.podval.org>
