Michael Van Canneyt michael.vancanneyt at wisa.be
Fri Aug 17 16:45:32 CEST 2001

On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Florian Klaempfl wrote:

> At 13:42 17.08.01 +0200, you wrote:
> > >BTW: I think it would be better to figure out which C++ constructs
> > >in FPC would be required than making C wrappers.
> >
> >Is it technically possible, to make C++-Libs directly accessible from
> >FPC?
> I was working on this, parts of this effort are in 1.1 but some
> others aren't commited yet because it isn't ready. If there is
> a need for it, I'll finish it. But supporting all C++ features
> like exceptions and templates is too much work and requires
> really deep changes in the compiler and rtl.
> Another problem is: the gcc handles
> exceptions in another way then MSC++, the name mangling is
> different etc. About the C++-Builder I even don't know.
> >That would be really fine for maybe accessing KDE-Libs without
> >the need for C-wrappers.
> Does the KDE-Lib still base on the Qt lib? Then it is very hard
> work: the Qt libs require full ANSI C++ support, furthermore
> the Qt headers require a preprocessor for the signal/slot
> concept. How should this be implemented in FPC? With another
> preprocessor? Or with native language support? The first
> solution isn't very pascalish and the second, hmmm, I don't know.

Even Kylix uses a C wrapper; I don't think it is worth the effort;
Creating a C layer in a structured/programmed way may be much more
simple than trying to implement full C++ support. The performance
impact of this extra layer will hopefully be quite minimal, when
compared to the comparative slowness of the C++ libs.


More information about the fpc-pascal mailing list