Precompiled headers on C

[Bonj]

Is it possible to avoid using precompiled headers on files that don't
#include "stdafx.h".
I have an ATL project,which has got a lot of ATL #includes in its stdafx.h.
I now need to add some .c files to this project, that compile as hard raw
C - not C++.
The .c files obviously won't understand the <atlbase.h> etc that are in the
stdafx.h.
But if I leave the precompiled headers switch on, it complains that fatal
end of file was found looking for precompiled header directive, obviously in
the .c files. I though precompiled headers were just so that when it *did*
get included, it knew that if the .obj file was newer than the .h file, it
didn't have to recompile it.... is this not so?
I was going to put the .c files in a static library project, but it turns
out that it's more messy that way as the purpose of the .c files is to
access resource data.
Any ideas?

[Jeff Partch [MVP]]

"Bonj" <benjtaylor at hotpop d0t com> wrote in message
news:u7******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl...

Is it possible to avoid using precompiled headers on files that don't
#include "stdafx.h".
I have an ATL project,which has got a lot of ATL #includes in its stdafx.h. I now need to add some .c files to this project, that compile as hard raw
C - not C++.
The .c files obviously won't understand the <atlbase.h> etc that are in the stdafx.h.

Right-click on the file in the Solution Explorer, then Properties. You'll
probably want to select 'All Configurations' followed by: C/C++>Precompiled
Headers>Create/Use Precompiled Header = Not Using Precompiled Headers.
--
Jeff Partch [VC++ MVP]

[Bonj]

Yes I know, that's exactly what I have done. But it doesn't exactly take the
benefit of using the stdafx.h.
I was wondering if there was some way you could still use the advantage of
precompiled headers while using .c files.
"Jeff Partch [MVP]" <je***@mvps.org > wrote in message
news:uG******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...

"Bonj" <benjtaylor at hotpop d0t com> wrote in message
news:u7******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl...

Is it possible to avoid using precompiled headers on files that don't
#include "stdafx.h".
I have an ATL project,which has got a lot of ATL #includes in its

stdafx.h.

I now need to add some .c files to this project, that compile as hard raw
C - not C++.
The .c files obviously won't understand the <atlbase.h> etc that are in

the

stdafx.h.

Right-click on the file in the Solution Explorer, then Properties. You'll
probably want to select 'All Configurations' followed by:
C/C++>Precompiled
Headers>Create/Use Precompiled Header = Not Using Precompiled Headers.
--
Jeff Partch [VC++ MVP]

[Larry Brasfield]

"Bonj" <benjtaylor at hotpop d0t com> wrote in message news:%2******** *******@TK2MSFT NGP09.phx.gbl.. .

Yes I know, that's exactly what I have done. But it doesn't exactly take the benefit of using the stdafx.h.
I was wondering if there was some way you could still use the advantage of precompiled headers while using .c files.

There is. You can setup a build where several different
groupings of headers are precompiled, then use any one
precompilation for different sources as you see fit. To
see how that works, study the docs on compiler options
relating to precompilation.

I may be wrong about this, but getting it to happen with
the IDE's semi-brainless automatic build system could be
a difficult process. You would then be facing creation of
an alternative build process. Many such exist and many
have found them atractive for various reasons, generally
because they allow such flexibility.

For your situation, I expect you would be better off
getting your .c files to compile as C++. Usually, the
changes necessary to do that are all improvements.

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: do************* **********@hotm ail.com
Above views may belong only to me.

[Jeff Partch [MVP]]

"Bonj" <benjtaylor at hotpop d0t com> wrote in message
news:%2******** *******@TK2MSFT NGP09.phx.gbl.. .

Yes I know, that's exactly what I have done. But it doesn't exactly take the benefit of using the stdafx.h.
I was wondering if there was some way you could still use the advantage of
precompiled headers while using .c files.

Oh, you can set one *.c file to create another *.pch for all your other *.c
files to use.
--
Jeff Partch [VC++ MVP]

[Bonj]

> There is. You can setup a build where several different

groupings of headers are precompiled, then use any one
precompilation for different sources as you see fit. To
see how that works, study the docs on compiler options
relating to precompilation.
Mmmm... it usually gets its knickers in a twist whenever I try to modify the
build settings, normally.

I may be wrong about this, but getting it to happen with
the IDE's semi-brainless automatic build system could be
a difficult process. You would then be facing creation of
an alternative build process. Many such exist and many
have found them atractive for various reasons, generally
because they allow such flexibility.
I think it would be better if you could set different build settings for
different files, this would allow you to compile managed and unmanaged ones
separately (separate issue, but...), then you could be sure they were
compiling the way you want.

For your situation, I expect you would be better off
getting your .c files to compile as C++. Usually, the
changes necessary to do that are all improvements.

Nah, I wouldn't dream of doing that. I love my C files, I want to keep them
that way - and I won't be forcing them to compile as C++. I'd do it in
assembly language if I knew it, but I don't! I generally think C to be good
for memory and such functions as manipulating resources, whereas all the
high-level ATL stuff is taken care of by the C++ side. The C files are the
only ones that are going to be modifying the global memory of the
application (well, DLL) - all of the stuff in the C++ ones is localized in
the ATL -based classes. It doesn't use any heap either - all of the memory
is in a resource file loaded into global namespace.

Cheers

[Norm Dresner]

"Bonj" <benjtaylor at hotpop d0t com> wrote in message
news:%2******** *******@TK2MSFT NGP09.phx.gbl.. .

Yes I know, that's exactly what I have done. But it doesn't exactly take the benefit of using the stdafx.h.
I was wondering if there was some way you could still use the advantage of
precompiled headers while using .c files.

Could you hack up the stdafx.h into two sections separated by
#ifdef _cplusplus
...
#else
...
#endif

Norm

[Larry Brasfield]

"Bonj" <benjtaylor at hotpop d0t com> wrote in message
news:%2******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP10.phx.gbl. ..
[Brasfield once wrote:]

For your situation, I expect you would be better off
getting your .c files to compile as C++. Usually, the
changes necessary to do that are all improvements.
Nah, I wouldn't dream of doing that. I love my C files, I want to keep them that way - and I won't be forcing them to compile as
C++. I'd do it in assembly language if I knew it, but I don't! I generally think C to be good for memory and such functions as
manipulating resources, whereas all the high-level ATL stuff is taken care of by the C++ side. The C files are the only ones that
are going to be modifying the global memory of the application (well, DLL) - all of the stuff in the C++ ones is localized in the
ATL -based classes. It doesn't use any heap either - all of the memory is in a resource file loaded into global namespace.

You seem to suffer under the misapprehension that
you would have to change the nature of your C code
in order to compile it as C++. That is not what I was
suggesting. If your C files are already ANSI C (rather
than the ancient K&R C), then with just a little work,
and no changes to the way the code operates, they
can be made acceptable to the C++ compiler. This
means a little less sloppiness with respect to typing,
and a few casts to make explicit what was implicit
in the C version, but the sequence of assignments
and calls, the data structures, and the form of
expressions can remain as they were. You need
not add any classes, use namespaces, or emply
any other purely C++ features. This usage is
commonly known as "using C++ as a better C".
(Of course, some C diehards quibble with this!)
Cheers

OK.

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: do************* **********@hotm ail.com
Above views may belong only to me.

[Norm Dresner]

"Norm Dresner" <nd***@att.ne t> wrote in message
news:nD******** ******@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldn et.att.net...

"Bonj" <benjtaylor at hotpop d0t com> wrote in message
news:%2******** *******@TK2MSFT NGP09.phx.gbl.. .

Yes I know, that's exactly what I have done. But it doesn't exactly take

the

benefit of using the stdafx.h.
I was wondering if there was some way you could still use the advantage of precompiled headers while using .c files.

Could you hack up the stdafx.h into two sections separated by
#ifdef _cplusplus
...
#else
...
#endif

Norm

I just looked at the M/S on-line documentation for precompiled headers and
found this statement
"Although you can use only one precompiled header (.pch) file per source
file, you can use multiple .pch files in a project"

Would this accomplish some of what you want?

Norm

[Bonj]

You seem to suffer under the misapprehension that
you would have to change the nature of your C code
in order to compile it as C++.
No, I don't - I suffer the apprehension (mis~ or otherwise) that there would
be no advantage in performance in converting it to C. The way I see it, it
is the same compiler backend that is building my program, but in C, it is
doing simpler things when compiling and having to conform to a stricter set
of rules about what it can do than when doing C++.
I personally very much doubt that there is any way of using the C++-only
features or the way C++ compiles that C doesn't, in order to increase the
speed of the program. But if this is what you meant by "using C++ as a
better C", then please tell me what they are - because I don't know them!
What I mean is, when I compile C, it is an old language that has been around
since the seventies or something. But the compiler I'm using hasn't been
around since the seventies, so the only advantages in using C++ would be in
what functionality I could use, not performance.
My C files would be acceptable to the C++ compiler, apart from the 'extern
"C" ...' bit. But without the precompiled headers, they're acceptable to the
C compiler aswell. It's like in a web application, if you're not using the
session state, you might aswell turn it off.
That is not what I was
suggesting. If your C files are already ANSI C (rather
than the ancient K&R C),
Oh god yes, they're standard, modern C. They compile with the MS 7.1
compiler just like the C++ files do, it's just they've got a .c extension.
No ancient compilers that use weird specifics or anything.
then with just a little work,
and no changes to the way the code operates, they
can be made acceptable to the C++ compiler. This
means a little less sloppiness with respect to typing,
and a few casts to make explicit what was implicit
in the C version,
I never do implicit casts anyway. I always use, for instance:
HMODULE hMod = (HMODULE)hInsta nce
I'm presuming this is faster than the static_cast<typ e> thingy or other?
but the sequence of assignments
and calls, the data structures, and the form of
expressions can remain as they were. You need
not add any classes, use namespaces, or emply
any other purely C++ features. This usage is
commonly known as "using C++ as a better C".
(Of course, some C diehards quibble with this!)

Cheers

OK.

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: do************* **********@hotm ail.com
Above views may belong only to me.