Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] RFC: Make xen's public headers a little friendlier for C++.

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 26.02.15 at 16:22, <tim@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> At 14:09 +0000 on 26 Feb (1424956161), Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 26.02.15 at 14:11, <tim@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > +headers++.chk: $(PUBLIC_HEADERS_TO_CHECK) Makefile
>> 
>> ... I don't think limiting this to a subset of the headers is the right
>> thing here: C++ consumers are (most likely) going to be user space,
>> i.e. tools, and those would want to be able to use those excluded
>> headers.
> 
> OK.  I'll have a look through that list.  I presume I'll still want to
> exclude e.g. the arch/ headers on the grounds that users shouldn't
> be including them directly (and we won't want cross-arch includes)?

Aren't even our tools doing cross-arch includes. I've been trying to
remember why they're excluded from the C check, but can't.

> If I'm extending this to cover more headers than the ANSI-C check
> does, should I also relax the '-ansi' requirement to, e.g. '-std=gnu++98'?

I think that would be reasonable nowadays. Anyone wanting
compatibility farther back could contribute a patch...

>> and I don't see
>> how this step is being avoided when there's no C++ compiler there.
> 
> if g++ isn't on the path, 'g++ -v' fails and we end up with an empty
> headers++.chk file.

The line is so long that I overlooked that "if g++ -v" at the
beginning (having expected some different mechanism, like
suppressing the dependency in that case). Sorry for the noise.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel