Re: [Simulavr-devel] Executive decision: status-quo on names, request for help in addressing confution issue.

[Paul Schlie]

> From: Bill <address@hidden>
> Now for some rambling:
> I have heard some report that simulavr C, and that make interfacing
> easier somehow, and they don't need to install C++...
> 1.)I don't understand why installing C++ is a problem, so I may find
> enligthenment there.
> 2.) What is the problem interfacing C and C++? I assume it has to do
> with the C++ runtime initialization requirements being different from
> C? I wouldn't mind someone trying to explain this to me, off-list if
> desired. Perhaps there is something worth accomodating in the C++ code?

A few observations:

- simply put, for one, I can build simulavr, not simulavrxx on OSX (but
  sorry haven't had the time to try to identify/fix the problem)

- given the current somewhat fragile/transitionary state of the avr's
  tool chain, I (and possibly others) would rather not try to deal with
  attempting to debug mixed C/C++ code at the moment if avoidable, one
  thing a time, as GDB itself is likely to break as soon as it's decided
  to delete the old depreciated hooks that avr presently depends on, etc.

(so although those who desire to concentrate efforts on simulavrxx, may
 well be justified; it's not a short term option for myself at the moment;
 which may change if it becomes useful to me prior to my fixing it myself)