254
edits
Online Developer Meeting (2021-10-26): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Online Developer Meeting (2021-10-26) (view source)
Revision as of 19:11, 26 October 2021
, 26 October 2021→Importance of allowing Octave headers in C language sources: Update from meeting
(→Progress of Octave 6.4.0 release: Update notes from meeting) |
(→Importance of allowing Octave headers in C language sources: Update from meeting) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
See bug report [https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?61370 61370] and also comments 39 and 40 in [https://octave.discourse.group/t/using-m-prefix-for-member-variables-in-c-classes/1517 this discourse discussion] for some motivating examples of cases where it might be simpler to expect that Octave header files will be compiled by a C++ compiler. | See bug report [https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?61370 61370] and also comments 39 and 40 in [https://octave.discourse.group/t/using-m-prefix-for-member-variables-in-c-classes/1517 this discourse discussion] for some motivating examples of cases where it might be simpler to expect that Octave header files will be compiled by a C++ compiler. | ||
--> Go ahead and remove support for compiling these headers in C. jwe will go through the sources and evaluate uses of <code>#ifdef __cplusplus</code>. | |||
=== Fallback topic: <code>spawn</code> with <code>P_OVERLAY</code> works differently on POSIX and Windows === | === Fallback topic: <code>spawn</code> with <code>P_OVERLAY</code> works differently on POSIX and Windows === | ||