[ Dropping gcc-patches. ]
"Gabriel Dos Reis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I have not yet committed any patches to the branch--at present it is
>> just a copy of the trunk. I will start committing patches soon, and
>> anybody else may submit patches as well. The branch will follow the
>> usual gcc maintainership rules, except that any non-algorithmic
>> maintainer may additionally approve or commit patches which permit
>> compilation with C++.
>
> I have a question: I suspect that in concreteness you would prefer
> declarations
> in GCC headers have a C++ linkage, as opposed to C linkage -- except where
> for interoperability with common runtime systems, we want the
> declarations to have
> C linkage (e.g. in libgcc for example). Am I correct?
Yes, I think that makes the most sense.
> The reason I'm asking is that a fresh build o gcc-in-cxx dies on my machine
> with
> complains that `program' has conflicting declarations: once in
> libcpp.h as having
> C++ linkage, once in toplev.h with a C declaration. It is the
> tradition in modern
> C++ to avoid having many `sources' for the same declaration.
Yes. I'm working around that for now by editing toplev.h, to avoid
pushing libcpp and libiberty to C++ right away.
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C" {
#endif
/* This is used by cpplib and libiberty. */
extern const char *progname;
#ifdef __cplusplus
}
#endif
I'll try to get my current set of patches committed to the branch
later today.
Ian
