Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 19:09:11 +0000
> 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.
I just hope that when Nico's anti-Microsoft campaign cools down, we can come back to the actual technical issues and hopefully I don't have to spend lot of energy debunking strawman arguments and that saved energy is spent on things that benefit the C++ community at large. I have been trying to filter signals from the noise, but it has been getting harder and harder.
-- Gaby
-----Original Message-----
From: SG15 <sg15-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Ville Voutilainen via SG15
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 11:26 AM
To: Evolution Working Group mailing list <ext_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>; Nicolai Josuttis <nico_at_[hidden]>; ISO C++ Tooling Study Group <sg15_at_[hidden]>; Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]>; Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]>; Nathan Sidwell <nathan_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [SG15] [isocpp-ext] Can we expect that all C++ source files can have the same suffix?
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.
*sigh*
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.
_______________________________________________
SG15 mailing list
SG15_at_[hidden]
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.isocpp.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsg15&data=05%7C01%7Cgdr%40microsoft.com%7Cde0824de03a0491e40ec08da22fb37db%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637860759643106317%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=DHkz8JoUvDuOqVlWwpzchz7byGcRZLGfQ60Jz20%2Bzts%3D&reserved=0
> This is nowhere near a Microsoft-specific challenge, and there's
> nothing new or shocking about it.
I just hope that when Nico's anti-Microsoft campaign cools down, we can come back to the actual technical issues and hopefully I don't have to spend lot of energy debunking strawman arguments and that saved energy is spent on things that benefit the C++ community at large. I have been trying to filter signals from the noise, but it has been getting harder and harder.
-- Gaby
-----Original Message-----
From: SG15 <sg15-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Ville Voutilainen via SG15
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 11:26 AM
To: Evolution Working Group mailing list <ext_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>; Nicolai Josuttis <nico_at_[hidden]>; ISO C++ Tooling Study Group <sg15_at_[hidden]>; Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]>; Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]>; Nathan Sidwell <nathan_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [SG15] [isocpp-ext] Can we expect that all C++ source files can have the same suffix?
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.
*sigh*
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.
_______________________________________________
SG15 mailing list
SG15_at_[hidden]
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.isocpp.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fsg15&data=05%7C01%7Cgdr%40microsoft.com%7Cde0824de03a0491e40ec08da22fb37db%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637860759643106317%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=DHkz8JoUvDuOqVlWwpzchz7byGcRZLGfQ60Jz20%2Bzts%3D&reserved=0
Received on 2022-04-20 19:09:13