lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: C++ pushback
    Date
    On 04/24/2006 15:02, Gary Poppitz wrote:
    >> We know they are "incompatible", why else would we allow "private" and
    >> "struct class" in the kernel source if we some how expected it to work
    >> with a C++ compiler?
    >
    >
    > I can see that this was intentional, not an oversight.
    >
    > If there is a childish temper tantrum mentality about C++ then I have no
    > reason or desire to be on this list.
    >
    > Grow up.

    Please let me summarize:
    1) Many people are more efficient writing C++ modules.
    2) It does not make sense to rewrite existing C code in
    another language.
    3) Kernel H-files are not compilable by g++.
    4) The H-files use C++ keywords.
    5) The H-files use member initialization syntax, unsupported
    by g++.
    6) The H-files use empty structures which are not empty in
    g++.

    4), 5) and 6) are to be fixed if we want to be g++-friendly. I am not
    aware of any other issues. Features like static constructors and
    exceptions are not strictly necessary for successful C++ programming.

    4) must be trivial.
    5) is less trivial but still doable. Can we ask g++ folks?
    6) looks rather painful.

    What do you think?

    Regards
    Roman

    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-04-27 18:21    [W:2.234 / U:0.028 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site