On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, aaragon wrote:
Yes, I figured that the weird looking symbol is compiler specific. Then it also means that I won't be able to use the c++filt command with anything other than symbols created by the GNU C++ compiler right? I mean, if I compile the code with the Intel compiler, most likely this function won't work.
Right. In fact, it is likely that even the GNU C++ compiler has altered its obfustication strategy several times due to ABI changes.
The fact that there is no macro for C++ functions indicate that either a) people do not use autotools when working with with C++ programs; b) they do, but they are very good writing m4 macros for testing C++ code, macros that are not published anywhere in the web; c) the developers of autotools do not write C++ code and they don't care about implementing a macro to test for them. As for me, I'm just a user, and it would be very difficult to implement a macro to do these tests. Even if I come up with a test, it might be very nasty.
Most C++ is based on C++ classes, class methods, and templates, rather than "functions". C style functions in C++ is a bit unusual. Also it is quite common for C++ code to not compile or link without including library-specific headers, and multiple headers may be required, ordered in a particular way. This makes C++ features much more difficult to test in a generic way.
Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfriesen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
