From: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 22:24:43 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT
Message-ID: <2f7f7af2-585c-9374-34e3-e34680678935@kdbg.org>
In-Reply-To: <87d195zcy0.fsf@gmail.com>

Am 12.07.2017 um 21:12 schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason:
> I think in the context of this desire Johannes Sixt's "Actually, I'm
> serious [about let's compile with c++]"[1] should be given some more
> consideration.

Thank you for your support.

> I've just compiled Git with it and it passes all tests. I think the
> endeavor is worthwhile in itself as C++ source-level compatibility for
> git.git is clearly easy to achieve, and would effectively give us access
> to more compilers (albeit in different modes, but they may discover
> novel bugs that also apply to the C mode code).

Please keep in mind that my patches only show that it can be done. 
Nevertheless, the result is far, far away from valid C++ code. It can be 
compiled by GCC (thanks to its -fpermissive flag) and happens to produce 
something that works. But that does not mean that other compilers would 
grok it.

Source-level compatibility is only necessary as a stop gap in the 
transition to C++. If the transition is not going to happen, I doubt 
that there is any value. It is simply too much code churn for too little 
gain. The real gains are in the features of C++(11,14).

> But why do it? Aside from the "more compilers" argument, we may find
> that it's going to be much easier to use some C99 features we want by
> having C++ source-level compatibility, and on compilers like that may
> not support those features in C use the C++ mode that may support those.

I would be happy to learn about a C99 feature where C++ mode of some 
compiler would help.

The only C99 feature mentioned so far was designated initializers. 
Unfortunately, that actually widens the gap between C and C++, not 
lessens it. (C++ does not have designated initializers, and they are not 
on the agenda.)

> If not C++ support would be interesting for other reasons. Johannes
> Sixt: It would be very nice to get those patches on-list.

I don't think it's worth to swamp the list with the patches at this 
time. Interested parties can find them here:

https://github.com/j6t/git.git c-plus-plus

I may continue the work, slowly and as long as I find it funny. It's 
just mental exercise, unless the Git community copies the GCC Steering 
Committee's mindeset with regard to C++ in the code base 
(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-05/msg00705.html).

-- Hannes