Ok, what exact parts do you suggest to change? For now I see that dropping __cplusplus guards should make the code C++-free; please, correct me if I'm wrong.
Dmitry Selyutin <ghostman.sd@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Except to the extent which they're not, which is clear from the fact that
> I was able to recognize that as clang's header.
>
> I don't object to marking it as clang-derived. I can also copy the
> copyright notice.
>
> > Why should the Tiny _C_ Compiler's headers be compatible with c++?
>
> Because this is the direction which will most certainly be reflected in the
> future standards, in C++ for sure. If it's not difficult to keep it
> compatible, I don't see why it should not be compatible. I cannot predict
> how and why this header can be re-used, though.
C++ support statements should be avoided simply because
it is not consistent to the rest of the codebase. If you want to
build it with cpp compiler having that one file is pointless.
Nothing will work anyways. Also gcc now depends on c++ which
I think was their greatest mistake and downfall. Please don't
make this happen with tcc.