On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Ed Beroset <[email protected]> wrote: > Evan Huus wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Guy Harris <[email protected]> >> 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. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
