On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis > <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Richard Guenther >> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis >>> <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Duncan Sands <baldr...@free.fr> wrote: >>>>> Hi Gabriel, >>>>> >>>>>>>> Richard just reminded me that we have two fancy_aborts. >>>>>>>> Could you tell which one your code is indirectly using? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the one installed as plugin/include/system.h, which seems to be >>>>>>> gcc/include/system.h. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> OK. I think that declaration has to have the C language spec. >>>>>> Would you prepare a patch for that? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> you mean: wrap the fancy_abort declaration in system.h in 'extern C'? >>>> >>>> Yes. Thanks. >>> >>> I don't think that's correct - if GCC is built with a C++ compiler >>> fancy_abort has >>> C++ linkage. >> >> But tthen, that would prevent a C plugins from working, as Duncan >> initially reported. > > Well, sure. No design part of the (basically not existent) plugin API caters > for mixing C++/C C/C++ plugin vs. GCC. Trying to paper over a single > issue is not a way to make that magically work.
That is a pretty loaded assertion with little evidence. -- Gaby
