[antlr-interest] More, Status of C++ backend?
Maurizio de Pascale
mdepascale at dii.unisi.it
Sat Jan 5 03:29:18 PST 2008
You're right Jim, that's why I've said "ideally" ;D
I've often listened to people complaining about poor compilers and
linkers (especially for embedded devices), simply I used to believe that
at least the meaning of extern c was standard across compilers and that
non templated C++ code should compile correctly even on toy compilers.
Maybe some ANTLR user has a working C++ to C compiler ;)
cheers,
Maurizio
mdepascale at dii.unisi.it
Jim Idle wrote:
>
>> -----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