On 4/15/2015 10:09, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Trevor Saunders <tbsau...@tbsaunde.org> > wrote: > I don't buy this kind of argument given that the switch to C++ has > complicated things instead of simplifying them.
I've written before about how problematic having c++ files with .c extensions was for importing gcc into DragonFly's base. The system .mk files have targets based on extension (e.g. .c=.o) and it chooses cc or c++ based on those targets. We had to install difficult hacks to work around it. Honestly, mandatory renaming of the files should have been a condition of allowing c++ in the code base. e.g. "guys, if we do this, we have to rename all files requiring compilation by c++ compiler". I know you can wave this off as "we provide a build system for gcc, this isn't a valid reason" but the fact is this is counter-intuitive and confusing. I also think this should be fixed properly, and ripping off the band-aid seems reasonable to me. Regards, John
