Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:50:54 +0200 | From | Sam Ravnborg <> | Subject | Re: C++ pushback |
| |
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:37:05PM -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote: > > > >I agree, it would be a bad idea to compile the existing C code by g+ > >+. The good idea is to be able to produce new C++ modules etc. > > No, this is a reason why C++ modules are _not_ a good idea. If you > could write the module in C or C++, but in C++ it compiled 100-200% > slower, then you would write it in C. The original issue was the possibility to add support for C++ solely to support an existing implementation of a filesystem. Not to rewrite the kernel in C++, neither to encourage the use of C++. And with this in mind the figures above does not matter.
Likewise does neiter of the many arguments in this thread. Now if the C++ fans could present what is needed to actually support building a module in C++ instead of arguing.....
Sam - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |