* If implementors would like to get behind a universal-c++(-and-c)-driver effort and contribute changes needed for their implementations, then perhaps something like this could be possible.

I wouldn’t be surprised if you found more common ground here if people didn’t insist it has to be the existing traditional compiler – as opposed to some driver that wraps some existing build system and compilers.

-- Gaby

From: SG15 <sg15-bounces_at_lists.isocpp.org> On Behalf Of Tom Honermann via SG15
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 10:30 AM
To: Daniel Ruoso <daniel_at_[hidden]>; Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]>; ISO C++ Tooling Study Group <sg15_at_[hidden]>; Nathan Sidwell <nathan_at_[hidden]>; René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Ext <ext_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [SG15] [isocpp-ext] Can we expect that all C++ source files can have the same suffix?

On 4/20/22 12:55 PM, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022, 12:49 Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]<mailto:pdimov_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
In either case, the "proper way" to make things is with a Build System.

It sounds to me there's an opportunity for someone to create this "one line build system for trivial projects". It seems like it will be very popular.

The difficulty with that is the large and diverse set of toolchains in existence. Doing this requires knowledge of individual toolchains.

If implementors would like to get behind a universal-c++(-and-c)-driver effort and contribute changes needed for their implementations, then perhaps something like this could be possible.

Tom.