[antlr-interest] More, Status of C++ backend?
Jim Idle
jimi at temporal-wave.com
Thu Jan 3 12:10:15 PST 2008
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gavin Lambert [mailto:antlr at mirality.co.nz]
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 11:53 AM
> To: Maurizio de Pascale
> Cc: antlr-interest at antlr.org
> Subject: Re: [antlr-interest] More, Status of C++ backend?
>
> At 23:59 3/01/2008, Maurizio de Pascale wrote:
> >My suggestion is that the right road (ideally of course, I know
> the
> >C runtime is already in place) would be to have the runtime
> written
> >in C++ (as close as possible to the java counterpart) and
> provide
> >(also) a C API for C users.
>
> No, I disagree with that. It's important to keep a pure C
> runtime, for use with embedded hardware. Most of the embedded C++
> compilers I've seen are fairly flaky. (And that includes gcc.)
>
Yes. Maurizio - I guess you have never had to maintain C++ libraries on
12 different operating systems all with different compilers with
different ideas about C++ linkage and interaction with C ;-). I don't
wish to put that burden on everyone who wants a C interface as I have
had to do this with ANTLR 2 and it was a complete nightmare, having
nothing to do with the quality of the code, but the C++ compilers and
the linkers.
It is going to be bad enough looking after the C++ library for C++
programmers who are linking with C++ object :-)
Jim
More information about the antlr-interest
mailing list