is it time to mass change from .c to .cc in gcc/ ?

[John Marino]

On 4/15/2015 10:09, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Trevor Saunders <tbsaunde@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