C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [isocpp-ext] Can we expect that all C++ source files can have the same suffix?

From: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 21:25:38 +0300
On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 21:10, Nicolai Josuttis via Ext
<ext_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> IMO a compiler should parse a C++ file while a build system should not have to do that.


Build systems have done that for ages. You don't have to specify the
header dependencies of your source files,
build systems glean that information out of your souce files automatically.

> I learned yesterday that the/one reason Microsoft has a problem with supporting no specific extensions and not specific command-line options is that they have options to inject headers into c++ source files (/FI and -include) and want to support that still for module units. They have to know when starting the compilation, whether it is a module to decide whether to inject the header file at the front or in the global module fragment.
> I don't know whether that approach is valid at all. But it seems to hinder Microsoft to come up with a simple clean solution for the problem (yes, Gaby, formally this is not a "problem", you do everything standard conforming).
> This problem can be solved and should be solve by the compiler. So I strongly recommend to do that.

Other compilers like GCC have a similar facility, spelled -include.
This is nowhere near a Microsoft-specific challenge, and there's
nothing new or shocking about it.

Received on 2022-04-20 18:25:50