| Date | Thu, 11 Jan 2024 18:25:01 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/45] C++: Convert the kernel to C++ | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> |
| |
On 1/9/24 15:40, David Howells wrote: > >> Both C and C++ has had a lot of development since 1999, and C++ has in fact, >> in my personal opinion, finally "grown up" to be a better C for the kind of >> embedded programming that an OS kernel epitomizes. > > And gcc got rewritten in C++ some time back, so they have a vested interest. >
Indeed.
>>> (8) 'virtual'. Don't want virtual base classes, though virtual function >>> tables might make operations tables more efficient. >> >> Operations tables *are* virtual classes. virtual base classes make sense in a >> lot of cases, and we de facto use them already. > > You end up adding storage for a 'this' pointer for each virtual base class, I > think - and then you may have extra fun if you inherit from two classes that > both inherit the same virtual base class. Abstract base classes that are just > ops tables are probably fine, though.
My apologies, I meant *abstract* base classes, not *virtual*. To be honest, I don't think I have ever used virtual base classes in any other application than games (relating to physical objects), and barely even then.
-hpa
|