On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 04:21:11PM -0700, Brian Paul wrote: > Ian Romanick wrote: > > Once upon a time, there was talk of converting some parts of Mesa to > > C++. This was killed for a number of reasons, and these fell into > > basically two categories: > > > > 1. C++ would make the drivers worse. > > > > 2. Linking with C++ libraries causes problems with applications. > > > > So far, a fair portion of my GLSL compiler work has been re-creating a > > C++-like object heirarchy and management system. Frankly, the code > > would be much better (for all definitions of better) if I could just > > use C++. > > > > Has issue #2 been resolved? I recall that, for example, if ID's > > Quake3 binary dynamically linked with a library that dynamically > > linked with a different version of libstdc++, it would explode. Is > > that still the case? If this is still a problem, will it affect LLVM > > usage in Mesa? > > 2 is not an issue. libGLU uses C++ code. You just have to pass the > -cplusplus flag to the mklib script.
Right...but most apps don't use libGLU. :) I can't find it in the mailing list archives, but my recollection is that when someone tried linking libGL or a *_dri.so with libstdc++, it caused problems. Specificially, the libstdc++ version used was different from the version Quake3 used. This caused Quake3 to explode. That said, fglrx links with libstdc++, and it doesn't seem to pose any problems there. Other than keithp (I know your opinion), does anyone have any strong opinions for or against using C++ in the GLSL compiler?
pgpP3NEyEhgH6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Mesa3d-dev mailing list Mesa3d-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mesa3d-dev
