[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

changes for C++ constructors on psim



Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 
> Sorry, no. We had been using <iostream.h> on purpose, because <iostream>
> is a feature having been added by newer C++ standards, not being
> supported by older C++ compilers.
> 

This is to bring the test in line with the current standard which seems 
like a good idea.

> * <iostream> is not supported by older compilers (e.g. gcc < 3.0)
> => using <iostream> means giving up gcc < 3.0

For C++ this is not unusual. GCC has been making C++ front end changes 
for a while that causes C++ code that is not current fail to build.

> 
> * <iostream.h> is supported by all current gccs. 
> gcc >= 3.0 warns about it.
> 
> * Switching between <iostream.h> and <iostream> with autoconf magic
> probably introduces more problems than a single warning on a single file
> does.
> 

I agree.

> => Trying to use <iostream> will make further steps inevitable.
> Possible steps:
> * Rely on <iostream> and let building fail otherwise (I.e. abandon gcc <
> 3.0)

Seems ok with me. Can you build RTEMS with older versions of GCC (<3.0) 
now ?

My understanding is you could not for other reasons such as movement of 
system header files.

> * Add autoconf magic to check for <iostream> and <iostream.h> and switch
> between. This is the portable approach but is highly problematic in
> detail. I'd rather not do this.

Agreed.

> * Add autoconf magic to check for <iostream> and do not compile cdtest
> if <iostream> is not present. Not much different from the previous
> approach and similar problematic.

Agreed.

> * Stay with <iostream.h> and live with the warning. Confusing to users,
> the least problematic approach until somebody wants to use a compiler
> without it (i.e. until gcc abandons "backward" headers - AFAICT, even
> gcc-3.5 still has them, and I don't recall having read about a
> time-frame to finally abandon them)

Not too concerned which way this one goes.

-- 
  Chris Johns