Re: Why do we test a build using g++?

Do we support users who want to use a C++ compiler to build their perl?

On Mon, Jul 13, 2026, at 04:35, Paul "LeoNerd" Evans wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 22:41:14 +0100
> "Paul \"LeoNerd\" Evans" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I'd like to propose that (if there isn't another valid reason that is
>> stronger than our desire to use C99 features) we find another way to
>> test if the perl headers are compatible with C++. For example, could
>> we ship a tiny "helloworld.cpp" program that also pulls in <perl.h>
>> and <XSUB.h> or somesuch? Or maybe we write a tiny XS extension in
>> C++ and compiled with g++, to use for such testing purposes?
>> 
>> Or failing all of those; would we be able to test with g++ in some
>> sort of mode where we can ask it to accept things that C99 considers
>> valid. I don't know if this one is possible - see above under "I'm
>> not a C++ programmer", but I can't imagine we're the first and only
>> people to ever run into this issue. Perhaps there's some way we can
>> get around it?
>
> These various chats haven't surfaced a good reason for keeping the g++
> CI workflow around.
>
> Tony points out some things we can try doing:
>
>   > One option, rather than updating ccflags (config.sh, Config.pm,
>   > inherited by CPAN builds), might be to update cflags.SH to add
>   > -Wno-missing-field-initializers to the output of cflags, which is
>   > only used to build the core object files.
>
>   https://github.com/Perl/perl5/issues/24553#issuecomment-4953576892
>
> so I'll have a go at that, but if that doesn't look too easy or doesn't
> solve the problem, honestly I'm minded just to drop the `g++` target
> entirely at this point.
>
> Shout now if anyone has a different conclusion.
>
> -- 
> Paul "LeoNerd" Evans
>
> [email protected]
> http://www.leonerd.org.uk/  |  https://metacpan.org/author/PEVANS