[Crash-utility] Extension modules in C++

[Dave Anderson]

----- Original Message -----
> Dne Čt 26. července 2012 14:02:56 Adrien Kunysz napsal(a):
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Petr Tesarik <ptesarik at suse.cz>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > as part of SUSE HackWeek8, David started work on a GUI extension using
> > > Qt4, which is a C++ project. One of the early annoyances is that an
> > > extension module must include the declarations from defs.h, and we
> > > currently use some C identifiers which happen to be keywords in C++,
> > > namely:
> > > 
> > > - struct namespace
> > > - struct namespace namespace (in struct symbol_table_data)
> > > - char *typename (in struct gnu_request)

And it seems that "namespace" is used for other purposes in files 
like ppc.c and ppc64.c...

The "typename" is changeable, in fact I don't think it's really used
except for debugging purposes, although it would break the capability
of using other (earlier) versions of gdb.  I would say that most people
use the most recent gdb version, but it always seems that there's somebody
still doing things differently.  But that could be dealt with by #ifdef'ing
the structure member declaration in defs.h based upon the relevant GDB_X_X
setting, because gdb/symtab.c wouldn't see it.  Kind of ugly, though...

> > > 
> > > Can I rename them? But you said earlier that the existing API must never
> > > change... Any other suggestions to make this include file parseable by a
> > > C++ compiler?
> > 
> > One hack you could consider would be to do something like this:
> > 
> > extern "C" {
> >         #define namespace ns
> >         #include "defs.h"
> >         #undef namespace
> > }
> 
> Yes! That works, although I'm not entirely sure it can't do any harm.
> After all, it's what you called it - a hack. ;-)

But it can't harm the crash utility, right?  ;-)
 
> I wonder whether Dave (Anderson) can suggest a cleaner solution (or make an
> official statement that he doesn't care about C++ compatibility).
> 
> Petr Tesarik
> SUSE Linux
 
To be honest, I really don't care about C++ compatibility -- with the realization
that I'm already offending somebody.  If Adrien's suggestion works, I suppose I'd 
prefer to keep things as they are.  But if you really want to submit a patch,
I'll entertain it as always...

Dave