[lkml]   [2004]   [Jan]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Compiling C++ kernel module + Makefile
    Richard B. Johnson wrote:
    > I stand by my assertion that anybody who develops kernel
    > modules in C++, including MIT students, is arrogant.
    > Let's see if C++ is in use in the kernel. At one time, some
    > of the tools that came with it were written in C++ (like ksymoops).
    > Script started on Mon Jan 19 15:19:33 2004
    > $ cd /usr/src/linux-2.4.24
    > $ find . -name "*.cpp"
    > $ exit
    > exit
    > Script done on Mon Jan 19 15:20:25 2004

    Just so that you know, the extension .cpp is typically used by Windows
    C++ programmers, on most other environments the usual extensions are .cc
    and .C. If you look for *.cc you find scripts/kconfig/, so the
    kernel toolset is not completely C++-free. Not that all of this matters.

    > Well, perhaps the kernel developers were ignorant. They didn't
    > write anything in C++. Maybe they were just too dumb to learn the
    > language?

    It seems you you assume I'm an arrogant Bjarne-hugging C++-lover. Where
    did you get that? It's probably in your mind, where everyone who
    suggests C++ is a Bjarne-hugging C++-lover. I'M NOT IN THE C++ CULT. I'M
    you are now officially declared deaf. ;)

    > Maybe there is another reason:
    > The kernel development languages, as previously stated, were
    > defined at the project's inception to be the GNU C 'gcc'
    > compiler's "C" and extensions, and the 'as' (AT&T syntax)
    > assembler. Anybody can search the archives for the discussions
    > about using C++ in the kernel.

    Yeah, definitely. I fully agree that it's not wise to use C++ *in the
    base kernel*. The Linux project needs to maintain overall consistency,
    and one of the means of doing that is using a small, well-defined
    toolset -- in this case, as and gcc. Any large project needs language
    and coding standards.

    But we're not talking about the base kernel here. We're not talking
    about migrating the kernel to C++, or even modules that are part of the
    Linux kernel source. We're talking about *independent modules*. The
    kernel exports a module interface, and any binary driver that correctly
    hooks into the interface of the running kernel (using the correct
    calling conventions of the running kernel) and behaves properly (e.g.,
    doesn't do stack unwinds over chunks of kernel functions etc.) can hook
    into it and do useful work. If somebody has decided that it would be
    worth it for his project to use C++ (without exceptions, rtti and the
    whole shebang) then so be it, why should you care? It's just binary code
    that hooks into the module interface, using the correct calling
    conventions. It doesn't do dirty stuff -- no exceptions, no RTTI,
    etcetera. It compiles into plain, module-interface conforming assembler,
    that can be compiled with -- you guessed it -- 'as', the AT&T syntax
    assembler. Yes, they're taking a risk. Their risk is that C++ can't
    import the kernel headers, or that C++ might someday need runtime
    support that cannot be ported into the kernel. It's *their risk*, not
    yours. Then why do you have a reason to get religious about this?
    They're not submitting this stuff for inclusion in the Linux source!

    > Any person, or group of persons, who is smart enough to
    > actually write some kernel code in C++, has proved that
    > they are not ignorant. Therefore, they have demonstrated
    > their arrogance.

    This logic is faulty. It is built upon the premise that (ignorant ||
    arrogant). Not listening to warnings of others is not a sign of
    arrogance per se, it is only a sign of the presence of a different
    opinion. It assumes that the kernel developers are always right, and
    that everybody who is smart should listen to them, on penalty of being
    arrogant. Yes, these C++-loving people may be wrong (or they may not
    be), but that does not _automatically_ make them arrogant, they may
    simply have a different opinion -- right or wrong. If they are wrong,
    they are not arrogant, but simply *stupid*. If they are right, they are
    not arrogant either -- they may be arrogant *about it*, but that's just
    a manner of behaviour, and it's up to them if they behave in this way or
    not. Kernel developers do not prescribe what people can do with the
    kernel, this is part of the essence of "free". And as a result of that,
    they do not have the right to declare people arrogant when they do not
    listen. They have the right to *call* them that, but the only result of
    that is that all discussion on matters like these are smothered in
    religious wars. And that's a pity.

    -- Bart
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:00    [W:0.029 / U:11.896 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site