01-21-2016 06:34 AM
I know this topic has been asked several times in the past, but CVI compiler was an ANSI C compiler and didn't support C++ (see here or here for example).
Some documents on how to integrate C++ dll into CVI are available on NI website (for example here).
But starting from CVI 2013 NI compiler has been replaced by CLANG/LLVM compiler, and this is a C/C++ compiler (http://clang.llvm.org/).
Based on this huge modification, can Labwindows/CVI be used to develop C++ code?
Would this be possible in the future?
01-22-2016 03:04 AM
Hi Vix,
LabWindows CVI 2015 and or previous versions support only C.
Look at the main site http://www.ni.com/lwcvi/. There is information related to ANSI C.
01-22-2016 05:11 AM
Hi Dagaror,
as I wrote in my first post I'd like reading some detailed info on C/C++ development with CVI based on the latest CLANG compiler used by CVI.
As far as I understand, CLANG is a C/C++ compiler so I wonder why CVI can't compile C++ code.
Maybe this can be a nice product suggestion for the Idea Exchange forum, but I need to know more detailed info.
02-08-2016 12:26 PM
Hi Vix,
Supporting C++ entails far more than just the compiler. For example: the standard C++ library (including templates, etc...), the APIs of all the standard CVI libraries, the source editor (auto-indentation, coloring, etc...), code-generation from the various wizards, memory runtime checking, debugging, etc... so, even though the compiler does support it, for all of CVI to support C++ is still an extremely large undertaking that has to be weighed against other, competing work that's going into CVI.
I agree that this is something to should be taken to the Idea Exchange.
Luis
02-13-2016 01:22 PM
"... that has to be weighed against other, competing work that's going into CVI."
Like what? Fixing an a4 sized list of bugs and calling it a major release? You gotta be kidding me.
02-15-2016 12:55 AM - edited 02-15-2016 12:56 AM
Who wants to support this feature can add kudos and/or comments to this idea in the Idea Exchange forum.
This one is almost the same, but I'm not convinced of the reasons detailed there (so I preferred to open a new idea).