On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 06:23:51PM +0000, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Regarding fortran: can we have a vote on this one?
> >
> > Some developers (including myself) are not really familiar with C++,
> > and in the past preference has been expressed on the fortran ML in
> > favor of not using too much C++.
> >
> > I would also not really be in a position to review real C++ code.
>
> The discussion is purely about renaming files that are *already* C++
> source files but have the misleading .c file extension.
>
> Nobody is suggesting using C++ where it isn't already being used.
And even gcc/fortran/ is written in C++, the gcc/ headers it uses are C++
only, they use templates etc., so gcc/fortran/ that uses those headers
has to be C++ too. That doesn't mean you need to use C++ idioms everywhere
in your code, those files can stay to be mostly C-like with C++ headers and
use C++-only constructs only where it brings sufficient advantages.
Many of the gcc/*.c sources that Martin wants to rename are also written
like that.
The renaming will just match the reality, clang++ will stop warning that
support for .c extension for C++ is deprecated when building gcc, sites like
openhub.net (if they twice a year manage to build stats for gcc, dunno what
they are doing wrong or if it is because of the limiting of anonymous git
on sourceware) will not claim most of GCC is written in C etc.
Jakub
