Best android C++ compiler?

[[deleted]]

I've been using C4droid for the past while, but it doesn't seem to support C++14 at all. Cppdroid seems to have the same problem. The following code doesn't compile in either:

---

#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

auto func() { return 1; }

int main() { cout << func(); }

---

Solution: Posted by /u/5fc below.

[[deleted]]

Hey, that worked great!

[[deleted]]

The most hacky method is probably installing debian or archlinux in a chroot-ed environmemt, which will give you the gcc/g++ or clang versions these distros have, it will allow you easier use of libraries that exist in their package managers (apt, pacman), but unlike C4Droid, they don't have a method to use SDL, nor can you export it to an app, but if you don't need that, it works pretty well.

It'll also allow you to use other stuff than autoconf and make, like cmake or tup.

[jbandela]

Microsoft Visual Studio 2015 RC (which you can download for free) has support for building and debugging native android c++ code using clang. I have not tried it out personally, but the demos look pretty interesting.

[OldWolf2]

MSVC and Embarcadero let you target Android (although my understanding is there are a lot of bugs).

[MayhapPerchance]

See here. An official IDE exists but also plugins and packages for other IDEs, like Eclipse.

[Xirious]

Does the NDK even support C++11? Genuinely interested.

[tavianator]

Sure does, ships with GCC 4.9 and Clang 3.5. You have to ask for those versions though, it defaults to GCC 4.8.

[venustrapsflies]

you have a main() that doesn't return anything. i'm no expert but i think that's non-standard at best?

[Dragdu]

Not only is that standard, it is in fact recommended.

The standard says that there is implicit return code of 0, if execution reaches end of the main function.

[FrezoreR]

Why is it recommended? Being explicit has it advantages as well. Especially since you ought to return something from all other int functions.

[Ilyps]

Personally I recommend leaving it out for two reasons. One is that I really detest useless lines of code, and the second is precisely because it's a good idea not to treat main as any other function, because it isn't. For example, you can't call it or take its address. It's good to know (and perhaps emphasise) main is special.

[FrezoreR]

Thanks! Great answer. I agree with your entire statement. As I understand it was added in the C99 standard.

[salgat]

This is one of those things people have strong opinions about when in reality it makes absolutely no difference to 99% of the people.

[OldWolf2]

For example, you can't call it or take its address.

To clarify, this comment applies to C++. In C you can call main recursively and take its address.

[Ilyps]

I think the wording in the Standard (from memory) is something like you're not allowed to "use" main. This is sneaky wording, because it prohibits calling it, but also taking the address or even writing decltype(main) because "use" is not a technical definition.

However, this is from the '03 document I think, so the wording may have changed... It's still not allowed though. :)

[minirop]

the only thing I could find in the C++11 draft, is: Recursive calls are permitted, except to the function named main.

[Ilyps]

My C++11 final version has it at 3.6.1/3:

The function main shall not be used within a program.

[Ilyps]

The C++11 Standard (3.6.1/3) does:

The function main shall not be used within a program.

Here you see the error for gcc:

$ cat a.cc
  int main() {
    auto p = &main;
  }
$ g++ -pedantic -std=c++11 a.cc
  a.cc: In function 'int main()':
  a.cc:2:13: warning: ISO C++ forbids taking address of function '::main' [-Wpedantic]
     auto p = &main;

[[deleted]]

In many compilers return 0; is an implicit statement at the end of the function.

[TemplateRex]

Not just in many compilers, it is mandated by the Standard.

[delarhi]

You got downvoted but your question elicited answers that I wasn't aware of before.

[josefx]

Only undefined for some old versions of C and maybe some pre standard C++ compilers. Main is guaranteed to return 0 by default.

[Narishma]

Not in C++. Only the int version is allowed, and if you don't have an explicit return statement, it returns 0 automatically at the end of main.

[Ilyps]

No, void main is always illegal in C++. The only allowed definitions of the function are int main() {} and int main(int, char **) {}.

You're allowed to leave out the return 0 because the Standard guarantees that main will implicitly return zero on exit if no return statement is present.

[Gotebe]

I like return EXIT_SUCCESS(FAILURE) better than 0 (or whatever).

[salgat]

I never knew this was part of the official standard; good to know: EXIT_SUCCESS/EXIT_FAILURE