RE: 1.3.1: g++ compilation :^)

[Charles Randall <cr...@matchlogic.com>]

Yep. I remember that conversation.

However, I could have sworn that I compiled 1.3.0 out of the
box with g++ as a test. In retrospect, I must've been
smoking crack -- it doesn't work.

So, umm... Nevermind.

-Charles 

----------
From: Alexei Kosut
To: 'new-httpd@apache.org'
Sent: 7/19/98 12:38:40 PM
Subject: Re: 1.3.1: g++ compilation :^(

On Sun, 19 Jul 1998, Charles Randall wrote:

> One of the big features in 1.3.0 (in my opinion) was the renaming
> that supported (among other things) compilation with a C++ compiler.

IIRC, it was never intended that Apache should be built with C++. What was
added, I believe, was support for writing modules in C++, i.e. being able
to write C++ translation units that link properly with Apache (i.e., the
header files were made C++-compatible), which is compiled in C. 

Building Apache in C++ is probably not a good idea to begin with; it is a
C program, and building it in C++ has the possibility of breaking things,
especially around or near the module interface and WRT dynamic linking.
The only problem I can see with compiling Apache with C, and modules with
C++, is that you might run into static initialization issues, but you
shouldn't be doing static initialization in an Apache module anyhow :)

-- Alexei Kosut <ak...@stanford.edu> <http://www.stanford.edu/~akosut/>
   Stanford University, Class of 2001 * Apache <http://www.apache.org> *