Dima Kogan <[email protected]> writes: >> Though if you want to put the logic that just enables c++ in there like >> you do in d983fbdf, that makes sense to me as well. In that case, >> please update demangle.exp so that it doesn't list the c++ option >> unnecessarily. But in any case, please keep the C++11 flags private to >> your test case. > > OK. What you suggest doesn't really work because then everything in my > tests will be built as c++, instead of just the .cc. I can make us both
Right, I didn't notice you have a .c file as well. > happy, but let me understand specifically what the complaint is. Are you > opposed to the full patch to ltrace.exp (build all .cc and .cpp as c++ > source), or just the fact that I'm building them as a gnu++11 flavor of > c++? If I removed the gnu++11 part from the ltrace.exp patch, and put > that into dwarf.exp somehow, then we're good? Yes. In the new-style tests (e.g. parameters2.exp), we use file ending to determine what's inside the file. Would it make sense to have a cc ending for C++98, c11 for C++11, etc.? Thanks, PM _______________________________________________ Ltrace-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltrace-devel
