Re: Would I be violating the GPL?

[Petr Vandrovec <vandrove@vc.cvut.cz>]

Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 10:23:21PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> 
>>Building for VMware Workstation 5.0.0.
> 
> 
> Well I only looked at 4.5.2
> 
> 
>>Using 2.6.x kernel build system.
>>make -C /lib/modules/2.6.13-AS20/build/include/.. SUBDIRS=$PWD 
>>SRCROOT=$PWD/. modules
...
>>  CC [M]  /usr/lib/vmware/modules/source/vmmon-only/common/task.o
>>cc1plus: warning: command line option "-Wstrict-prototypes" is valid for 
>>Ada/C/ObjC but not for C++
>>cc1plus: warning: command line option 
>>"-Werror-implicit-function-declaration" is valid for C/ObjC but not for C++
>>cc1plus: warning: command line option "-Wdeclaration-after-statement" is 
>>valid for C/ObjC but not for C++
>>cc1plus: warning: command line option "-Wno-pointer-sign" is valid for 
>>C/ObjC but not for C++
>>cc1plus: warning: command line option "-Wstrict-prototypes" is valid for 
>>Ada/C/ObjC but not for C++
>>cc1plus: warning: command line option "-ffreestanding" is valid for C/ObjC 
>>but not for C++
>>include/asm/bitops.h: In function ???int find_first_bit(const long unsigned 
>>int*,
>>unsigned int)???:
>>include/asm/bitops.h:334: warning: comparison between signed and unsigned 
>>integer expressions
>>[...]
> 
> 
> Whyever is anything calling cc1plus when the file appear to all be .c?

It is vmmon from my vmware-any-any-updates, not from VMware itself.  I use 
templates from C++ to compile same C code against different structures 
(different ABI), so you can use same vmmon module for all VMware's products.

Using templates instead of including same sources with random #define before 
looked fine at that time when kernel did not use these additional options and/or 
c++ did not complain about them.

Now it seems that I should return back to compiling same sources with different 
#defines as it seems impossible to get rid of these warnings without declaring 
own rules... (and with g++ 4.0 it now even emits incorrect warnings about using 
uninitialized struct members, which is another reason to get rid of c++ compiler 
for me).

So if I would be making decision now and not five years ago, I would not pick 
c++ templates to do the job.
							Petr Vandrovec