From owner-freebsd-bugs Wed Oct 6 4:51:33 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C199314D1C for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 04:51:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id EAA55586; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 04:50:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 04:50:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199910061150.EAA55586@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Thomas David Rivers Subject: Re: bin/13383 sys/netinet/in.h violates C++ spec. Reply-To: Thomas David Rivers Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR bin/13383; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Thomas David Rivers To: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, n@nectar.com Cc: Subject: Re: bin/13383 sys/netinet/in.h violates C++ spec. Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 07:01:46 -0400 (EDT) > > Though ANSI C++ may forbid such a construct, a conforming C++ compiler > should accept legal ANSI C when it is specified as such (using extern > "C" or whatever). I believe (I could be wrong) that all extern "C" does is affect the linkage of functions declared in the extern "C" block. That is, functions declared in an extern "C" block will have a `C signature'. I believe that's all it means. It does not mean that the source within the block can violate C++ standards. I have a .PDF version of the C++ standard here that I can check later. - Dave Rivers - To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message