On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Duncan San
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Duncan Sands wrote:
Hi Gabriel,
>>> Richard just reminded me t
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 6:58 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 3:54 AM, Duncan Sands wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
> If ENABLE_BUILD_WITH_CXX is defined, then GCC itself is built with C++,
> and we want a C++ sign
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Duncan Sands wrote:
>>> Hi Gabriel,
>>>
>> Richard just reminded me that we have two fancy_aborts.
>> Could you tell which one your c
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 3:54 AM, Duncan Sands wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
If ENABLE_BUILD_WITH_CXX is defined, then GCC itself is built with C++,
and we want a C++ signature for functions. If it is not defined, then
GCC itself is
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Duncan Sands 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 p
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 3:54 AM, Duncan Sands wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>>> If ENABLE_BUILD_WITH_CXX is defined, then GCC itself is built with C++,
>>> and we want a C++ signature for functions. If it is not defined, then
>>> GCC itself is not built with C++, and we want (and must have) a C
>>> signature.
Hi,
If ENABLE_BUILD_WITH_CXX is defined, then GCC itself is built with C++,
and we want a C++ signature for functions. If it is not defined, then
GCC itself is not built with C++, and we want (and must have) a C
signature.
I suppose we would decide that fancy_abort always uses a C signature,
b
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
>>>
What we can do is what I suggested
in my last message: just give the language specification to the
d
Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
>>
>>> What we can do is what I suggested
>>> in my last message: just give the language specification to the declarations
>>> that matter in gcc/system.h.
>>
>> Sure, just have to ch
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
>
>> What we can do is what I suggested
>> in my last message: just give the language specification to the declarations
>> that matter in gcc/system.h.
>
> Sure, just have to check #ifdef ENABLE_BUILD_WITH_CXX to
Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
> What we can do is what I suggested
> in my last message: just give the language specification to the declarations
> that matter in gcc/system.h.
Sure, just have to check #ifdef ENABLE_BUILD_WITH_CXX to know what
specification to give.
Ian
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
>
>> Ian - you added this include in rev. 167764, I don't think that was "proper".
>> But I'm not sure wrapping a system.h include inside extern "C" from a C++
>> plugin is proper either ...
>
> I did commit 1677
Richard Guenther writes:
> Ian - you added this include in rev. 167764, I don't think that was "proper".
> But I'm not sure wrapping a system.h include inside extern "C" from a C++
> plugin is proper either ...
I did commit 167764 but I didn't write it. It's from
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patc
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Duncan Sands 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.
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
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Duncan Sands 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 t
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. It is used for example in tree.h here:
/* Advance to the next argument. */
static
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Duncan Sands wrote:
> Hi Gabriel,
>
>
>>> it defines fancy_abort. Not wrapping system.h in extern C results in
>>> undefined symbol: _Z11fancy_abortPKciS0_
>>> when loading the plugin.
>>
>>
>> If you want fancy_abort to have a C language specification, that is
>
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Duncan Sands wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>>
>>> As system.h is supposed to only include system headers and do nothing
>>> else it has to be prepared to be included from C++ already, so no extern
>>> "C"
>>> w
Hi Gabriel,
it defines fancy_abort. Not wrapping system.h in extern C results in
undefined symbol: _Z11fancy_abortPKciS0_
when loading the plugin.
If you want fancy_abort to have a C language specification, that is
what you should declare as such.
my code isn't using fancy_abort directly,
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Duncan Sands wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
>
>> As system.h is supposed to only include system headers and do nothing
>> else it has to be prepared to be included from C++ already, so no extern
>> "C"
>> wrapping should be necessary for it.
>
>
> it defines fancy_abort.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Duncan Sands wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
>
>> Uh, I don't think we should do that. Why do we include cstring here
>> anyways?
>>
>> Ian - you added this include in rev. 167764, I don't think that was
>> "proper".
>> But I'm not sure wrapping a system.h include inside e
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Duncan Sands wrote:
>> My plugin is written in C++. When including headers from gcc-4.6 it wraps
>> them
>> in 'extern "C"' to prevent name mangling. Some of the plugin headers
>> include
>> gcc/system.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Duncan Sands wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
>
>> As system.h is supposed to only include system headers and do nothing
>> else it has to be prepared to be included from C++ already, so no extern
>> "C"
>> wrapping should be necessary for it.
>
>
> it defines fancy_abort.
Hi Richard,
As system.h is supposed to only include system headers and do nothing
else it has to be prepared to be included from C++ already, so no extern "C"
wrapping should be necessary for it.
it defines fancy_abort. Not wrapping system.h in extern C results in
undefined symbol: _Z11fanc
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Duncan Sands wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
>
>> Uh, I don't think we should do that. Why do we include cstring here
>> anyways?
>>
>> Ian - you added this include in rev. 167764, I don't think that was
>> "proper".
>> But I'm not sure wrapping a system.h include inside
Hi Richard,
Uh, I don't think we should do that. Why do we include cstring here anyways?
Ian - you added this include in rev. 167764, I don't think that was "proper".
But I'm not sure wrapping a system.h include inside extern "C" from a C++
plugin is proper either ...
since the plugin needs
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Duncan Sands wrote:
> My plugin is written in C++. When including headers from gcc-4.6 it wraps
> them
> in 'extern "C"' to prevent name mangling. Some of the plugin headers
> include
> gcc/system.h which includes the C++ header cstring if it detects the use of
My plugin is written in C++. When including headers from gcc-4.6 it wraps them
in 'extern "C"' to prevent name mangling. Some of the plugin headers include
gcc/system.h which includes the C++ header cstring if it detects the use of a
C++ compiler. As a result cstring routines included this way
30 matches
Mail list logo
