Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 28 Sep 2000 12:29:06 +0200 (CEST) | From | Igmar Palsenberg <> | Subject | Re: Linux kernel modules development in C++ |
| |
> (not that I'm defending C++ support in the kernel, but...) > > "We'd need all of C++, or nothing" is a bogus argument. It's perfectly > reasonable to want to use a subset of C++, since C++ is such an > all-inclusive language.
No. I'm agains using subsets of languages. Use it all, or don't use it.
The last thing we want here is a 'Well, I used an exception handler, and it ate my primary disk. How come ??' -> 'Well, the docs say you can't use exception handlers in kernel space'.
Just to give an example.
> At my last systems programming job (at > Geoworks) we had a whole graphical embedded OS implemented in C++ and had > basically no bloat or performance problems (and it had one of the only > Java implementations I've seen that didn't suck performance-wise :-). > The problems we ran into were almost always related to crappy C++ > support in embedded compilers; it was always nice when we got to use g++.
I'm not against C++.. It can make code readable and maintainable.
> Of course, 2/3 of our coding conventions were made up of "don't use X > feature of C++", where some values of X were "templates" and "exceptions".
That means you trowing a big part of things that make C++ so usefull. With such restrictions I would probably use straight C.
> Even (especially) with that stuff removed, you get a reasonably > straightforward language for systems programming. Of course, we also > shipped OS + apps as a single, statically linked image (appropriate for > a cell phone w/ no MMU), so we also didn't have to deal with the binary > compatibility problems that C++ frequently brings.
'I'll call you back in a moment mum. My phone needs a kernel recompile' :-))
> miket
Igmar
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |