From: Steven Walters [mailto:kemu...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:30 PM
> What is "other compilers" here? Microsoft has historically seemingly had no > care to make their headers to be compatible with any other compiler other > than VS. > In the past I have attempted to do this, but the headers are so full of > VS-isms that it's impossible to use in any other compiler without > modifications, unless that compiler is strictly VS compliant, such as Intel's > on Windows. > So, that completely rules what comes to mind for me at least, which is > MinGW... Intel? There is also a recent effort to get LLVM - so clang/lld - integrated into Visual Studio, with support for Windows-specific code: http://blog.llvm.org/2013/09/a-path-forward-for-llvm-toolchain-on.html > But I am against applying such filters automatically. > 1) we often use .cxx extensions for C++ files, and also .cc is another > commonly used one out in the wild. > 2) some generated code we have to deal with uses non default/standard > extensions (such as gSOAP and its .nsmap file) that needs to be compiled as > C/C++ > So I'm of the opinion that anything in the source folders should be > automatically be treated as source, and the user can apply filters to exclude > what they need to be excluded specifically. The C++ source set could simply default to **/*.cpp + **/*.cxx + **/*.cc, which would cover the majority of uses. I believe it makes more sense to default to something relevant and useable by pretty much everybody without any single change, versus having everybody override the default settings to use the same excludes: **/*.h and possibly **/*.inc, in the current state... Michael --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
