Messages in this thread | | | From | (Alan Cox) | Subject | Re: ideas | Date | Sun, 5 May 1996 16:35:43 +0100 (BST) |
| |
> but at a cost of speed. There are also more C wizards in linux land than > GAWK wizards. More people working on something, the faster it gets done, or > the better it is, at least this is true of linux.
Go ahead and do it. Actually I suspect gawk will beat you or come very close. Its virtually I/O bound and it beats gcc -M doing basically the same task.
> Interface lock for each version.
Ah locking in catastrophes. Bad. 1.2.x keeps the same internal interfaces 2.0.x should but not other things. The idea also doesnt work too well for a kernel when things can change that are subtle and internal.
> 3. Use the features in C++ that will allow a more stable kernel > Okay here is where i am going to get the developers mad at me. How about > converting parts of linux to use C++, no not classes or the object > oriented > stuff, just the parts that can make life easier for the developer, and > make > the kernel run faster and more stable. Use default arguments, to
C++ code is currently slower and has buggier output than well written C ( especially as certain people bother to peek at the assembler output). Unless the g++ walking volatile bug has finally been fixed its also not usable. Finally g++ eats memory - forget building on an 8Mb machine with g++
> Also we could use C++ streams type functions to implement printk calls. I > wonder how many drivers have been broken by stack corruption, by > incorrect > params in printk calls. Variable argument function calls are inherently > slower then fixed argument calls.
But not than C++ calls or multiple calls or the other mess. I've not found a single problem with printk, because gcc supports typechecking of printf's
Alan
| |