[gcc-in-cxx] zlib?

[gcc-in-cxx] zlib?

[Jerry Quinn]

Hi.  I started looking at what it would take to convert zlib to build
with c++.

First off, it's not GPL.  Are there any issues with modifying the code
checked into the tree?

Next, it uses automake, which seems to assume that a .c file should be
compiled with CC, and not CXX.  I get the impression we need to subvert
automake to get this to happen.

Any thoughts?

Jerry

Re: [gcc-in-cxx] zlib?

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Jerry Quinn <jlquinn@optonline.net> writes:

> Hi.  I started looking at what it would take to convert zlib to build
> with c++.

The zlib library in gcc is actually a copy of upstream sources, so I
don't think it would be a good idea to make this change.  We should stay
as close to the upstream source as possible.

Ian

Re: [gcc-in-cxx] zlib?

[Jerry Quinn]

On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 19:07 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Jerry Quinn <jlquinn@optonline.net> writes:
> 
> > Hi.  I started looking at what it would take to convert zlib to build
> > with c++.
> 
> The zlib library in gcc is actually a copy of upstream sources, so I
> don't think it would be a good idea to make this change.  We should stay
> as close to the upstream source as possible.

I figured this was probably the case, hence asking before I did too much
work :-)

It does mean that we will always have to have c++ and c available to
bootstrap.  Was one of the goals to remove the need for a host C
compiler?

Meanwhile, I'm working on libdecnumber...

Jerry

Re: [gcc-in-cxx] zlib?

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Jerry Quinn <jlquinn@optonline.net> writes:

> It does mean that we will always have to have c++ and c available to
> bootstrap.  Was one of the goals to remove the need for a host C
> compiler?

No, removing the need for a host C compiler was not a goal.

> Meanwhile, I'm working on libdecnumber...

Actually, that is also based on upstream sources, and should also change
as little as possible.

Ian