Joe Buck wrote:
Right, but you don't need the answer to the question until it's time to
build libstdc++, and you can't build libstdc++ without a C library.
So can't the test be deferred until that point?
I don't think that's a good idea. People build compilers without
headers frequently, and this
Joe Buck wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
It would be hard to make that completely reliable for embedded systems
development, where the header files may or not be available in any
standard place at the time that gcc is configured.
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 04:30:43PM -0600, E. Weddington wrot
>
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>I think that the decision should be made at configure time, by checking
> >>the #include headers to see if they are C++-ready. Look for the string
> >>"__cplusplus" in some set of standard headers, if it is not found,
> >>assume that we'll need implici
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:26:12PM -0400, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
How would people feel about adding a configure option
--with-implicit-extern-c? Then we could justifiably flip the default
for the generic *-elf, etc., targets. I
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:26:12PM -0400, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > How would people feel about adding a configure option
> > --with-implicit-extern-c? Then we could justifiably flip the default
> > for the generic *-elf, etc., targets. In fact in general
Joe Buck wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:26:12PM -0400, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
How would people feel about adding a configure option
--with-implicit-extern-c? Then we could justifiably flip the default
for the generic *-elf, etc., targets. In fact in general we could
then take the macro out of
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:26:12PM -0400, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> How would people feel about adding a configure option
> --with-implicit-extern-c? Then we could justifiably flip the default
> for the generic *-elf, etc., targets. In fact in general we could
> then take the macro out of the tm.
"Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In particular, I'm surprised at the Darwin configurations apparently
> not defining NO_IMPLICIT_EXTERN_C, and at most OpenBSD configurations
> not doing so (but alpha-openbsd gets it from alpha/alpha.h); VxWorks
> configurations are also inconsistent
Original Message
>From: Ralf Corsepius
>Sent: 09 May 2005 09:27
> On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 22:54 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 21:34 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Mon, 9 May 2005, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 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.).
You could apply t
On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 22:54 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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
> >>
Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
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
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
On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 23:34 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> The following targets (based on wildcarded entries from config.gcc) do
> *not* appear to define NO_IMPLICIT_EXTERN_C, i.e. GCC is configured to
> suppose their headers are not C++-aware and to add an implicit extern
> "C" around them. Are
> Joseph S Myers writes:
Joseph> Are there any in this list which should not be,
Joseph> i.e. which should be presumed to have C++-aware headers? Conversely,
Joseph> are there any in this list whose maintainers can confirm that the
Joseph> headers are not C++-aware and so the current configur
On May 8, 2005, at 7:34 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
In particular, I'm surprised at the Darwin configurations apparently
not defining NO_IMPLICIT_EXTERN_C, and at most OpenBSD configurations
not doing so (but alpha-openbsd gets it from alpha/alpha.h); VxWorks
configurations are also inconsistent in
17 matches
Mail list logo
