On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Ed Beroset <beroset@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Evan Huus wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Guy Harris <guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>
>
>>> Note all the lines flagged with "[-Wc++-compat]"; those are for
>>> code that's valid C but not valid C++ and that would have to be
>>> fixed in order to compile with a C++ compiler (unless there's a
>>> "let valid C code that *could* be handled as C++ code through"
>>> option to all C++ compilers we'd be likely to use).
>>
>>
>> As per Jakub, we have about 7k of those at the moment. The vast
>> majority appear to be missing casts from void pointers, which are at
>> least not difficult to fix (especially since I think many are in
>> generated code).
>
>
> I looked at some of those from a dissector I wrote, and I'm pretty sure
> I can rewrite to avoid most or all of those, and can use the C-style cast
> such as "r = (guint *)ptr;" which will also work with C compilers, or I
> could use the C++ style: "r = static_cast<guint *>(ptr);" For those not
> familiar with the new style casts in C++, here's a quick pointer:
> http://www.cplusplus.com/doc/tutorial/typecasting/
>
> Given that we haven't made the transition yet, I'm inclined to use the
> C-style casts for now. Anybody have a differing opinion?
If we do plan to migrate we will definitely be using only C-style
constructs to start. It will be enough work transitioning compilers
without changing language constructs at the same time.
