Re: [boost] [config] Does it work with compilers in C mode ?

Subject: Re: [boost] [config] Does it work with compilers in C mode ?
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-25 09:01:13

On 3/25/2011 5:05 AM, John Maddock wrote:
>>> Almost certainly :-(
>>
>> What in config is C++ specific as opposed to C as far as the actual
>> header file code ?
>
> Well some of the detection code needs to include C++ only headers... but
> I guess we wouldn't need to configure the C++ std lib in C mode ?!
>
> There are also a few C++ specific workarounds in suffix.hpp, but they
> could be included in a #ifdef __cplusplus block.
>
>>>> I am working on bringing my variadic macro data library into Boost PP,
>>>> and I wanted to use the BOOST_NO_VARIADIC_MACROS in config, but Paul
>>>> Mensonides was concerned that Boost PP should work with a C compiler
>>>> and that config could have something that is C++ specific, and
>>>> therefore be unusable for Boost PP. I would rather not reduplicate the
>>>> logic of BOOST_NO_VARIADIC_MACROS in Boost PP, even though I was the
>>>> one to add it to config, because it puts the same code in two
>>>> different places.
>>>
>>> We could try and patch Boost.Config to make it C compatible I guess...
>>> not sure how much work it would be though?
>>
>> I am not concerned about the tests themselves, but rather about the
>> header files. If there are C++ specific things in the header files
>> which could just as easily work with C, I would like to take a look at
>> what they are. if it was reasonable work, I could try to convert it as
>> long as it does not affect anything in C++ negatively and was not
>> essentially a "hack" to fit C++ into C.
>
> If you're willing to give it a go, then it's very much a case of add a
> C-language test case, and see what breaks.

I am not a big fan of trying to get C, as opposed to C++, to work in 
Boost in general, but it does seem as if the config files could benefit 
from this if it could be done, and the pp-lib is meant to work for C 
compilers as well as C++ according the Paul Mensonides. I will look 
further at this issue. I will assume that the lack of __cplusplus being 
defined means that one is compiling in C mode.