Is there any up to date C++ to C converter?

On google I found only informations about cfront, which is now outdated, no longer sold and not supporting newer standard.

Is there any other C++ to C converter?

The code doesn't need to be well readable, this would just be a cool addition but is not a requirement. It must just output well portable C code which can be compiled using a C compiler.

Did you check your other thread?

http://cboard.cprogramming.com/showp...8&postcount=16

Yes, it inspired me to look for it.

The listed converters are weak.
- Cfron is outdated, no question.
- Comeau C++ is not free, it's expensive and it's no "real" conversation. It creates C code for the specific platform, but it doesn't exactly exchange for example free wit delete (maybe it does, just for example). It creates platform specific code.
- http://www.nondot.org/~sabre/Projects/, link down
- LLVM, no windows version, site is hard to understand, from description on wikipedia it says nothing about converting C++ to C and also on their site is nothing about C++ to C. Guess it also creates platform specific C object code?

From that view, the original question is still in.

> LLVM, no windows version,

it's in the downloads section.

> site is hard to understand,

not to me.

>from description on wikipedia it says nothing about converting C++ to C and also on their site is nothing about C++ to C.

the direct link I posted to their official website overrides wikipedia.

> Guess it also creates platform specific C object code?

Platform specific C object code? What are you talking about? There is no such thing. If it's object code, it's binaries, and C code is not a binary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robwhit

Platform specific C object code? What are you talking about? There is no such thing. If it's object code, it's binaries, and C code is not a binary.

---

Dunno what I have just wrote about object.

Have you tried it?

I am reading here.
http://llvm.org/docs/FAQ.html#translatec++

The three lines
% llvm-g++ a.cpp -c
% llvm-g++ b.cpp -c
% llvm-g++ a.o b.o -o program
work for me on widnows and program is executable.

But program.bc will not be created. Idea why?

Again, why do you need to compile it as C or convert C++ to C?
Specifics please! You say you have a library in C, but it's possible to bridge gaps between C and C++ very easily. A lot of people can help you, if you just give us specifics on what you're trying to do and HOW!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

Again, why do you need to compile it as C or convert C++ to C?
Specifics please! You say you have a library in C, but it's possible to bridge gaps between C and C++ very easily. A lot of people can help you, if you just give us specifics on what you're trying to do and HOW!

---

Well, there are a lot of C++ compilers not supporting most useful features such as templates or stringstreams. Sure anyone can argue these features are not needed but that's a personal preference, a bit like religion. There are also lots of platforms (embedded) which doesn't even have a C++ compiler, but a C compiler.

I am very curious about this C++ to C conversation and would like to get the thing discussed in my previous post to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sept

There are also lots of platforms (embedded) which doesn't even have a C++ compiler, but a C compiler.

---

Two things there. If you're working on a normal *nix system or even a windows machine, getting a good C++ compiler is about as difficult as opening your browser and looking for them.
The other, if you're writing for an embedded system, you don't want all the crap from C++ anyway. What's the point in having templates and stringstreams, when you can only use 1k of memory?

QuantumPete

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuantumPete

The other, if you're writing for an embedded system, you don't want all the crap from C++ anyway. What's the point in having templates and stringstreams, when you can only use 1k of memory?

---

That sounds like a flaming anti-C++ statement. I'd say who needs a crap embedded system with 1k of memory instead?
Point is, templates, stringstreams & co are not crap but very useful stuff, and it's simply that the embedded system is too weak to support a modern language.
The embedded system is at fault and not C++.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sept

Well, there are a lot of C++ compilers not supporting most useful features such as templates or stringstreams.

---

Oh really? There are plenty of well-compliant compilers out there that supports these features very well.
Visual C++ and GCC among them comes to mind.

Quote:

---

There are also lots of platforms (embedded) which doesn't even have a C++ compiler, but a C compiler.

---

Yes, and that's a very big darn shame. You'd think that today we'd be over such limitations that embedded systems could support C++ seeing as C is an old language, not up-to-date with today's requirements.
It's a shame.
But then again, what are you targeting? Desktop or embedded?
If it's embedded, you probably can't use any C++ stuff anyway.

Quote:

---

I am very curious about this C++ to C conversation and would like to get the thing discussed in my previous post to work.

---

But you never really mentioned why you need to compile it as C, or at least failed to give specifics.
Because it's possible to mix C and C++.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

That sounds like a flaming anti-C++ statement.

---

Wasn't meant to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

The embedded system is at fault and not C++.

---

Absolutely. I'm just saying that *if* you have only 1k of memory, C++ is not your best bet.

QuantumPete
Edit: I didn't mean "crap" as in those features in C++ are crap! It was meant in the sense of "lots of extra stuff, which you don't need in this case, because it adds more overhead to your code on a system that doesn't have all that much memory"... I just shortened it

Looks like you got out your meaning wrong then ;)
But now that you've cleared it up, we're in agreement!

When I only want a program working within 1k of memory, I usually tend to argue that C adds too much bloat too. But now I am just being picky. I am going to make the blanket statement that a program for doing such conversions is unnecessary. There is little reasonable necessity to make such a conversion and anyone can go ahead and argue with me all they want but I will still refute the technical merrit of the conversion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by master5001

When I only want a program working within 1k of memory, I usually tend to argue that C adds too much bloat too. But now I am just being picky. I am going to make the blanket statement that a program for doing such conversions is unnecessary. There is little reasonable necessity to make such a conversion and anyone can go ahead and argue with me all they want but I will still refute the technical merrit of the conversion.

---

But if you translate C++ into C using machine translation, it will most likely just generate the same amount of code as if you directly compiled the C++ code - give or take a little tiny bit depending on how good the C++ to C translator is, and how well the C compiler does with the generated code - reading the page mentioned above, it appears that the llvm takes C++ code and compiles it, then reverts the generated half-compiled code into C, and it uses gotos instead of proper loops for example. So it may not make very pretty code.

--
Mats

Fair enough, however if you are trying to budget yourself within a very small amount of memory, it doesn't hurt to write your program in assembler over C anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by master5001

Fair enough, however if you are trying to budget yourself within a very small amount of memory, it doesn't hurt to write your program in assembler over C anyway.

---

Sure. But it becomes (much) harder to convert it to a different architecture - but then if it's only a few hundred or thousand lines of assembler, it's not a huge deal, I suppose.

--
Mats