This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Converting to ISO C89
Hi,
Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com> writes:
> Raja R Harinath <harinath at cs dot umn dot edu> writes:
>
>> Hopefully the ISO C89 changes also make the source C++-safe.
>
> It will not. There is extensive use of identifiers which are C++
> keywords, such as 'class' and 'delete'. I do not think your
> suggestion is useful enough to warrant changing all of these
> identifiers.
Fair enough.
> What might be useful is an optional mode for the C compiler in which
> function names get mangled as they would be in C++. That would have
> the effect of type-checking procedure calls across translation units
> at link time. To avoid mangling calls into libc it would have to be
> switchable within each translation unit -- one plausible approach is
> to recognize extern "C" and extern "C++" in C, another is #pragma.
I was thinking more about optimization: ensure that there's no
abstraction penalty for using a C++ compiler on C code, and that both
the C and C++ compilers exploit the same optimization opportunities.
- Hari
--
Raja R Harinath ------------------------------ harinath at cs dot umn dot edu