Messages in this thread | | | From | Roman Kononov <> | Subject | Re: C++ pushback | Date | Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:17:58 -0500 |
| |
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/
| |