Re: [PATCH] intel: wrap intel_bufmgr.h C code for C++ compilation/linking

From: "Tapani Pälli" <tapani.palli@intel.com>
To: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com>, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] intel: wrap intel_bufmgr.h C code for C++ compilation/linking
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:59:22 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <55B600FA.9000109@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5596ADC5.3020607@gmail.com>

On 07/03/2015 06:44 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 01/07/15 12:37, Tapani Pälli wrote:
>> (We need this include in porting changes for the OpenGL ES
>> conformance suite.)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tapani Pälli <tapani.palli@intel.com>
>> ---
>>   intel/intel_bufmgr.h | 8 ++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/intel/intel_bufmgr.h b/intel/intel_bufmgr.h
>> index 285919e..f061454 100644
>> --- a/intel/intel_bufmgr.h
>> +++ b/intel/intel_bufmgr.h
>> @@ -38,6 +38,10 @@
>>   #include <stdint.h>
>>   #include <stdio.h>
>>   
>> +#if defined(__cplusplus) || defined(c_plusplus)
>> +extern "C" {
>> +#endif
>> +
> Strongly in favour - I've been pondering on this for a very long time.
> Just a question - is there a compiler that care about (something from
> the last decade) that does not define __cplusplus but c_plusplus ?

I don't know, this was just copy paste from other file.

> Afaict the former is defined since (at least) the 1998 C++ standard,
> while the latter is extremely rare, and mostly mentioned as decrecated.

For me it is ok to drop c_plusplus, no strong opinion.

> -Emil
>

// Tapani

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel