Thell Fowler
2014-Mar-18 20:43 UTC
[Rd] Writing R Extensions: clarification/modification request
Hello R-core developers, The upcoming release of R-3.1.0 is exciting, especially the support structure changes for c++11! But, just the other day I encountered an issue with the package creation tools within Rcpp and Dirk referred me to 'Writing R Extensions' [footnote 13] along with the comment that `.hpp` file extensions are "verboten" on CRAN and then proceeded to find packages with `.hpp` files in CRAN. Hopefully you can provide some clarification as to the reasoning of current stance on this as the documentation doesn't provide any direction. Research indicates that the footnote may no longer reflect the current state of R or CRAN and that it may be time to _remove the statement from the documentation rather than punting and editing to reflect `c++11`_. Knowing that the time to manage the upcoming release schedule and the changes to CRAN is more than likely keeping you to busy to research a seemingly insignificant edge case I apologize for the length of this message. Hopefully my time in gathering this supporting information will save yours. __Research Notes__ The footnote pertains to section 1.1.5 [Package-subdirectories] paragraph 8 where it states> We recommend using .h for headers, also for C++ or Fortran 9x include files. > footnote: Using .hpp is not guaranteed to be portable.This statement and accompanying footnote are modifications of the original by Kurt Hornick in rev at 40010 on Nov. 26 2006.> We recommend using .h for headers, also for C++ > footnote: Using .hpp, although somewhat popular, is not guaranteed to be portable.It is completely understandable that this stance was taken, at that time, since tool-chains hadn't considered `.hpp` as a standard extension for c++ (none of the then released GCC g++ compilers (3.4.6, 4.0.3, 4.1.1) made any official distinction for it). As the original commit indicates though, the it was common. So common in fact that a [hpp-patch] was filed in 2004 to address this. The `.hpp` extension became a first-class c++ extension when the hpp-patch was _finally_ applied in Aug. 2007 and so for GCC >= 4.2.2 it was standard. LLVM had a [clang patch] in their code base to recognize `.hpp` for its frontend options in 2009, so LLVM >= 2.7, meaning that releases of XCode >= 3.2.6 can consider `.hpp` an officially supported extension. XCode 3.2.6 goes back to OS X 10.6. According to R Administration and Installation [Installing R under OS X]:> ..., then download the file R-3.2.0.pkg and install it. This runs on OS X 10.6 and later (Snow Leopard, Lion, Mountain Lion, Mavericks, ...); it is a 64-bit ('x86_64') build which should run on all Macs from mid-2008 on.The above would still hold true for all Macs with _updated_ XCode utilities. --- Obviously GCC, LLVM, and XCode do not represent the extent of the R user base but hopefully the fact that these tools and many others ( linkers, autoconf tools, etc...) have recognized, as you are doing with R-3.1.0 and c++11 support, that times have changed and the people have set the groundwork for best-practice and standards. -- Sincerely, Thell [footnote 13]: http://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-devel/R-exts.html#FOOT13 [Package-subdirectories]: http://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-devel/R-exts.html#Package-subdirectories [rev at 40010]: https://github.com/wch/r-source/commit/cc84426f5b665fb0cba9945c4726348307f36831 [hpp-patch]: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13676 [clang patch]: https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang/commit/2059d992cf87caaa6e1790afacdfdf6a26eb57e1 [Installing R under OS X]: http://r.research.att.com/man/R-admin.html#Installing-R-under-OS-X
Seemingly Similar Threads
- Error for compiling Rquantlib package 0.3.5 under Window 7 64bits
- rsync 3.0.9 partial file left after CTRL-C WITHOUT using --partial
- [LLVMdev] Building Boost library failed with Clang 2.9
- Running Hitec HPP-22 under wine. (RC device, USB)
- Fwd: rsync 3.0.9 partial file left after CTRL-C WITHOUT using --partial