Scripting C++ -- Boost.Python vs CORBA vs ???
Craig Maloney
cmaloney at physics.ucsb.edu
Wed Feb 27 11:20:04 EST 2002
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Wed Feb 27 11:20:04 EST 2002
- Previous message (by thread): Scripting C++ -- Boost.Python vs CORBA vs ???
- Next message (by thread): call me
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
"David Abrahams" <david.abrahams at rcn.com> wrote in message news:<a5h9qn$a3h$1 at bob.news.rcn.net>... > "Craig Maloney" <cmaloney at physics.ucsb.edu> wrote in message > news:3C7BCCA5.604 at physics.ucsb.edu... > > Another promising but incomplete entry, last time I looked (it still > couldn't represent the full C++ language in its XML). The mailing list > archives indicate that's still the case, though things may be changing: > http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/gccxml/2002-February/000029.html > > > This is what I would have guessed would be the "right" way to go about > > things (having known nothing about the EDG front-end). Presumably gcc > > gets the parsing right if it can compile ;) > > Even the EDG parser has bugs. However, if your code compiles with GCC 3.0, > gccxml should be able to handle it (note that GCC is up to 3.0.3 and 3.1 > will be released soon, so things have improved further since gccxml was > developed). > > -Dave My apologies to the group for my ignorance in compiler issues. It was unclear to me before that the EDG front end *was* used in commercial compilers. *grins sheepishly* I had assumed that it was a tool constructed for independent reasons (e.g. writing automatic wrapper generators). This is what I meant when I said that gccxml was the "right" way to do the wrapper generation. Now that my misconceptions have been cleared up, I retract my statement about gccxml being the "right way" as opposed to the PDT's use of the EDG front end. As Dave points out, since I'm compiling with gcc anyway, and not, say KAI or Intel, then I'm at a *slight* advantage using gccxml, all other things being equal. But now it seems more like a wash to me. Also -- does anyone have any news or thoughts about gccxml or something else like it being incorporated into the gcc proper? It seems that since gcc tries to be a "compiler collection" it might be nice to include things like automatic wrapper generation for multi-language support? Is this on the horizon? Cheers, Craig
- Previous message (by thread): Scripting C++ -- Boost.Python vs CORBA vs ???
- Next message (by thread): call me
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list