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