Hi Michael Niedermayer wrote: > Hi > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 05:15:07AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 01:24:39PM +1030, Yuri Vilmanis wrote: >>> Removed some dead code relating to C++. As no part of the codebase >>> will ever be seen by a C++ compiler, any code protected by >>> #ifdef__cplusplus will *never* get past the preprocessor, and so can >>> be safely removed. The files in which these guards appear are not >>> valid C++ anyway, so removing these references to C++ should reduce >>> future confusion on this issue. The C++ wrapper "fobs" (or other >>> C++ wrappers I'm not aware of) can be used by anyone requiring C++ >>> support. >> OK to apply this patch? > > all the versions should be bumped a little at least so user apps > could detect if these macros are there or not > > now about the patch itself, i have no real oppinion on this, it where > c++ people who wanted it, and now its one c++ developer who wants it > removed, i think that the people who wanted this (see svnlog i dont > remember at all) should at least get a chance to comment first > IMHO either remove all or add it on all exported headers then, not on just a few. I remember having problems with fifo.h when using g++ to compile. I would say remove those declarations. -- Baptiste COUDURIER GnuPG Key Id: 0x5C1ABAAA SMARTJOG S.A. http://www.smartjog.com Key fingerprint 8D77134D20CC9220201FC5DB0AC9325C5C1ABAAA Phone: +33 1 49966312
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4