On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 21:34 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > FWIW: IMO, NO_IMPLICIT_EXTERN_C actually is an OS/libc feature ("Your
> > system headers are c++ aware"), therefore it is hardly possible or
> > useful to ever use "#define NO_IMPLICIT_EXTERN_C" on "generic" targets
> > (*-elf, *-coff etc.).
>
> I'm going to ask you to think again about that assessment, because
> 'implicit extern C' mode is actually trouble if the headers *are* C++
> aware
The point is: You don't know, because you don't know which kind of
headers/libc is using a user is going to build gcc against.
I.e. any assumption is equally wrong unless you exactly know which kind
of headers/libc you are building against (e.g. recent versions of newlib
are supposed to have c++ aware headers, so any targets implying newlib
could (rather) safely use NO_IMPLICIT_EXTERN_C).
> -- look back through the bug database for cases. And my
> suspicion is that nowadays, the headers that generic targets do have
> are more likely to be C++ aware than not.
Agreed.
Ralf
