Any C code are valid C++ code?

[jrefactors]

Since C is a subset of C++, so any C code or C libraries (printf(),
scanf(), etc...)
are valid C++ code. Is that correct? so even though the whole program
is written in
C, but with .cpp extension, we still consider as C++ program?
Please advise. Thanks

[Victor Bazarov]

jr********@hotm ail.com wrote:

Since C is a subset of C++ [...]

Wrong premise. Wrong conclusion. The answer to your subj is "no".

[gianguz]

The answer is 'no' in general.For example one of the basic difference
(even if you create a simple hello world program and compile it under
with a C and a C++ compiler) between C and C++ relies almost in the
name mangling mechanism. C++ uses an extended decoration method to give
the linker indications about the name resolutions.
That tecnique is not compatible with C declaration naming.
This is the reason why you have to specify extern "C" {... } around C
code to ensure
compatibility.
Obviously there are other things that makes the two language very far
even so similar! ;)

Gianguglielmo

[Jonathan Bartlett]

jr********@hotm ail.com wrote:

Since C is a subset of C++

C is not a subset of C++. C++ has some incompatible changes from C.
However, they are compatible enough that a lot of code runs in both.

Some incompatibiliti es includes:

* different linking mechanisms (this is workaroundable w/ extern C)
* different interpretation of multidimensiona l arrays
* many C programs include typedefs and define which override C++
keywords, and therefore aren't allowed in C++ (typedef int bool; for
example)

Jon
----
Learn to program using Linux assembly language
http://www.cafeshops.com/bartlettpublish.8640017

[Alex Vinokur]

"Jonathan Bartlett" <jo*****@eskimo .com> wrote in message news:41******** @news.tulsaconn ect.com...

jr********@hotm ail.com wrote:

Since C is a subset of C++
C is not a subset of C++. C++ has some incompatible changes from C.
However, they are compatible enough that a lot of code runs in both.

Some incompatibiliti es includes:

[snip]
* different interpretation of multidimensiona l arrays

What is the difference?

[snip]

--
Alex Vinokur
email: alex DOT vinokur AT gmail DOT com
http://mathforum.org/library/view/10978.html
http://sourceforge.net/users/alexvn

[Chris Barts]

jr********@hotm ail.com wrote:

Since C is a subset of C++,
Wrong. A common notion that is completely wrong.
so any C code or C libraries (printf(), scanf(), etc...)
are valid C++ code.
Not true. For example, the following valid C program is not valid C++:

#include <stdlib.h>

int main(void)
{
/* new is a reserved word in C++ */
char new, *buf;
/* Implicit conversion from void* to char* not valid in C++ */
buf = malloc(1024);
free(buf);
return 0;
}

It is the case that you can use the C standard library functions in C++
code. However, it is rarely the best way to accomplish the task.
Is that correct? so even though the whole program
is written in
C, but with .cpp extension, we still consider as C++ program?

You can consider it a C++ program when it conforms to the relevant
standards. Writing in C is not a good way to conform to those standards.

[Chris Torek]

In article <11************ **********@c13g 2000cwb.googleg roups.com>
<jr********@hot mail.com> wrote:

Since C is a subset of C++, so any C code or C libraries (printf(),
scanf(), etc...) are valid C++ code. Is that correct?

No.

Compile the following program as a C program and run it. Then,
compile it as a C++ program and run that. Observe the different
output.

#include <stdio.h>

struct A { char c[1000]; };

int main(void) {
struct B { struct A { char c[1]; } a; char c[1]; };

printf("sizeof( struct A): %lu\n", (unsigned long)sizeof(str uct A));
return 0;
}

This is, of course, a carefully-constructed example -- but real C
programs really do fail to work when compiled as C++ programs,
sometimes, because of small but significant semantic changes.

(Exercise: *why* is the output different?)
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems
Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W) [phone]
email: forget about it http://web.torek.net/torek/index.html
Reading email is like searching for food in the garbage, thanks to spammers.

[Mark McIntyre]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:42:03 +0200, in comp.lang.c , "Alex Vinokur"
<al****@big-foot.com> wrote:

"Jonathan Bartlett" <jo*****@eskimo .com> wrote

* different interpretation of multidimensiona l arrays

What is the difference?

C lets you blur the distinction between ** and *[ ] and [ ][ ] rather
more, especially in function calls.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt >

[Jonathan Bartlett]

* different interpretation of multidimensiona l arrays

What is the difference?

Apparently I was incorrect. I had thought that C allocated them in a
static block while C++ allocated them as arrays of arrays, but a little
experimentation showed my ideas to be faulty.

Jon
----
Learn to program using Linux assembly language
http://www.cafeshops.com/bartlettpublish.8640017

[jcoffin]

C is not a subset of C++.

The C++ standard does require support for the C library, but with a few
changes in how that support must be provided (e.g. more restrictions on
which parts can be implemented as macros).

There are other differences, some of which have been pointed out
already, but I'll add yet another bit of code to demonstrate a
difference I haven't seen pointed out yet:

char x[sizeof('a')-1];

All properly-functioning C++ compilers are guaranteed to reject this.
In theory a C compiler could reject it as well, but I've never seen one
that did.

From the opposite viewpoint, most reasonably-written C can be converted

to C++ with only minimal changes, perhaps the most obvious of which is
that in well-written C, there should not be an explicit cast on the
value returned by malloc, while C++ requires one -- though well-written
C++ will rarely use malloc at all.

--
Later,
Jerry.

The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
--
Later,
Jerry.

The universe is a figment of its own imagination.