> Really? To start *writing* in C++, sure we want at least an initial
> version of the coding guidelines. I pointed to those, because they
> look like a reasonable start.
>
> To start *building* in C++, I do not think we need to agree on the
> coding guidelines. We are already doing stages 2 and
Hi Basile,
Basile Starynkevitch skribis:
> Do we have (e.g. for plugin makers) a nice way to know if a given GCC
> distribution was
> compiled in C or in C++ mode?
I’ve written an Autoconf macro that does that:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-03/msg00240.html
Thanks,
Ludo’.
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 22:34:22 +0200
Romain Geissler wrote:
> Hi,
> You'll find something like this :
>
> /* Define if building with C++. */
> #ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET
> #define ENABLE_BUILD_WITH_CXX 1
> #endif
>
> So that's it, you already got all you need for all version.
>
I did mention ENABL
Hi,
Le 26 mars 2012 à 20:33, Basile Starynkevitch a écrit :
>
> And I still think that GCC 4.7.1 should be able to tell by itself if it was
> compiled by C
> or by C++.
>
Actually you can already find it for every GCC version you are interested in
(4.6.x and 4.7.x), with very little logic, a
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:13:22 -0400
David Malcolm wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 17:07 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Mar 2012, David Malcolm wrote:
> >
>
> I suppose now is a bad time to mention that my python plugin *doesn't*
> use autoconf for its configure script - I didn't wan
On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 17:07 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> > Presumably a fix would be for the plugin's configuration phase to have a
> > test that tries to build a test plugin and run it, first building with a
> > C compiler, then a C++ compiler, and
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012, David Malcolm wrote:
> Presumably a fix would be for the plugin's configuration phase to have a
> test that tries to build a test plugin and run it, first building with a
> C compiler, then a C++ compiler, and decides what compiler the real
> plugin should be built with accord
On Sun, 2012-03-25 at 22:10 +0200, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:30:31 +0200
> Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> >
> > How can a plugin know that cc1 was compiled with C++ or just with
> > plain C? I don't really know (we do have GCCPLUGIN_VERSION, but should a
> > plugin use
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> To start *building* in C++, I do not think we need to agree on the
> coding guidelines. We are already doing stages 2 and 3, doing stage 1
> is a straightforward next step.
I agree with Diego that to start building only with a C++ compiler
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 17:36, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> The proposed coding guidelines have been published and will evolve
>> (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CppConventions). No point waiting to settle a
>> set of rules that will naturally change over time, as we start using it.
>
> That isn't what was d
> The proposed coding guidelines have been published and will evolve
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CppConventions). No point waiting to settle a
> set of rules that will naturally change over time, as we start using it.
That isn't what was decided when the transition to C++ was proposed though.
It w
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:30:31 +0200
Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
How can a plugin know that cc1 was compiled with C++ or just with
plain C?
nm thefile | grep _Z
(possibly nm -D)
You can also look for --disable-bootstrap or --disable-build-with
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> Nothing above tell me about GCC being compiled in C++ flavor
I believe the ones that are not compiled with a C++ compiler have a
--disable-xxx-something
in the output of gcc -v
-- Gaby
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:30:31 +0200
Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>
> How can a plugin know that cc1 was compiled with C++ or just with
> plain C? I don't really know (we do have GCCPLUGIN_VERSION, but should a
> plugin use
> ENABLE_BUILD_WITH_CXX)?
Actually, I tend to believe that this is really
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 14:04:56 -0400
Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 3/25/12 1:28 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> > On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:25:34 -0400
[...]
> > I would suggest then to put in a core header file (even used by plugins)
> > something like
> > #ifndef __cpluscplus
> > #error GCC and its
On 3/25/12 1:32 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Yes. For GCC 4.8, we should move to:
- Build all stages with C++
- Remove the option to go back to C.
That would mean you can start to use C++ in the compiler code although, AFAIK,
we are still waiting for the long-promised C++ Coding Standard. That s
> Yes. For GCC 4.8, we should move to:
>
> - Build all stages with C++
> - Remove the option to go back to C.
That would mean you can start to use C++ in the compiler code although, AFAIK,
we are still waiting for the long-promised C++ Coding Standard. That seems
like putting the car before th
On 3/25/12 1:19 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
When GCC won't be compilable any more by a C (not C++) compiler, should we make
that a
prominent& documented change? I believe it should also be reflected in our
configure
machinery (by rejecting the build of GCC when a C++ compiler is not ava
Hello All,
It seems that several Linux distributions are shipping a GCC 4.7 compiled by a
C++
compiler (probably GCC).
This affects plugins makers, as has been already discussed.
Do we have (e.g. for plugin makers) a nice way to know if a given GCC
distribution was
compiled in C or in C++ mod
19 matches
Mail list logo
