Notice: Any messages purporting to come from this site telling you that your password has expired, or that you need to verify your details, confirm your email, resolve issues, making threats, or asking for money, are
spam. We do not email users with any such messages. If you have lost your password you can obtain a new one by using the
password reset link.
Due to spam on this forum, all posts now need moderator approval.
Entire forum
➜ Programming
➜ General
➜ C/C++ filenames
It is now over 60 days since the last post. This thread is closed.
Refresh page
| Posted by
| Samson
USA (683 posts) Bio
|
| Date
| Sat 05 Aug 2006 10:36 PM (UTC) |
| Message
|
Quote:
However a quick test seems to show that compiling a .c file with g++ does in fact treat it as C++. However as Ksilyan says, if they are C++ files, why not have them suffixed .cpp?
Didn't want to continue hijacking the other thread. Given that g++ doesn't care what the filenames are and will in fact compile them properly, what other compilers require this change to be done?
I understand the argument that it should be done because it's considered a standard of some kind, but how or why did this become necessary?
The main reason I didn't do this in my case ( although I have now ) was because I didn't want to have a giant file renaming commit sent to the SVN repository. And it just worked. Even in Dev-C++ it just worked. So I never really figured on bothering.
Also related, would it be necessary to do the same for the H files? I've seen some scattered instances where header files are named as *.hpp and wondered why someone would do that too. | | Top |
|
| Posted by
| Jon Lambert
USA (26 posts) Bio
|
| Date
| Reply #1 on Sun 06 Aug 2006 02:19 AM (UTC) Amended on Sun 06 Aug 2006 02:21 AM (UTC) by Jon Lambert
|
| Message
| g++ is a frontend for gcc that uses a different spec file. That g++ compiles .c files as C++ would be dependent on the spec options which are set by the gcc packager, thus are platform dependent (that is they may well be different between SUSE and Debian for example).
The man page on gcc lists the default automatic detection. However that doesn't necessarily mean that you can successfully invoke gcc to compile C++ source because sometimes the location and search order of system libraries is different between spec files for g++ and gcc.
Pick one or the other. I guess it depends on the purpose of having source around that's both C and C++ compatible. Using C++'s better type-checking is the only one I can think of, but once it's C++ compatible, I'd drop using C unless you are supporting a platform that doesn't have a C++ compiler.
| | Top |
|
| Posted by
| Nick Gammon
Australia (23,158 posts) Bio
Forum Administrator |
| Date
| Reply #2 on Sun 06 Aug 2006 06:41 AM (UTC) Amended on Sun 06 Aug 2006 06:59 AM (UTC) by Nick Gammon
|
| Message
| My inclination is to "go with what works".
However, every now and then I get obsessive about doing it properly. :)
Technically, C and C++ are different languages, as I showed with the example before of how C++ lets you have multiple functions of the same name (with different arguments) and C doesn't.
Personally I think it confusing to have the same suffix (.c) for both C and C++ files, it would be like have .pl suffixes for C++ programs, even if you can get it to work it would be confusing.
As for the SVN repository, I feel your pain on that, it is the same in CVS. You could always start a new project "C++ SMAUG" or something. If you have to delete and re-enter every file anyway, there isn't much point in going with the same same repository.
The .hpp files I think have a slightly different meaning. My understanding is that they are for files with templates in them. (Like the STL templates).
Template declarations are a bit funny, since they have to be instantiated for each use (eg. vector<string> or vector<int>), then the implementation (and not just the declaration) has to be available to each compilation unit. I think that is what .hpp files are for - something that is included in every file (that needs it) but is more than just stuctures etc., it includes the implementation for templates. I might be wrong. |
- Nick Gammon
www.gammon.com.au, www.mushclient.com | | Top |
|
| Posted by
| David Haley
USA (3,881 posts) Bio
|
| Date
| Reply #3 on Mon 07 Aug 2006 03:06 PM (UTC) |
| Message
| SVN actually handles renames a whole lot better than CVS does. Most importantly it preserves file history over renames, whereas CVS loses it all. To save history in CVS you need to go into the repository and move around the ,v files manually.
My understanding about .hpp is similar to Nick's; it's used for header files that contain implementation details. That being said, I'm not sure if you actually need to make the implementation visible to all people who use it; at work we've been using Sun's C++ compiler and it seems that we just need to instantiate the templates explicitly in some .cpp file that gets compiled into a .o file, that the compiler uses to link in your template instantiation. |
David Haley aka Ksilyan
Head Programmer,
Legends of the Darkstone
http://david.the-haleys.org | | Top |
|
The dates and times for posts above are shown in Universal Co-ordinated Time (UTC).
To show them in your local time you can join the forum, and then set the 'time correction' field in your profile to the number of hours difference between your location and UTC time.
15,521 views.
It is now over 60 days since the last post. This thread is closed.
Refresh page
![[Go to top]](/images/gototop.gif)
top