On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 11:21:42 +0200, Esben Nielsen said: > I use a RTOS written in plain C but where you can easily use C++ in kernel > space (there is no user-space :-). We use gcc by the way. This isn't RTOS, in case you haven't noticed. ;) > It has been done for Linux as well > (http://netlab.ru.is/pronto/pronto_code.shtml). Why can't this kind of > stuff be merged into the kernel? Why is there no efford to do so?? Quoting http://netlab.ru.is/exception/LinuxCXX.shtml: "The code is installed by applying a patch to the Linux kernel and enables the full use of C++ using the GNU g++ compiler. Programmers that have used C++ in Linux kernel modules have primarily been using classes and virtual functions, but not global constructors. dynamic type checking and exceptions. Using even this small part of C++ requires each programmer to write some supporting routines. Using the rest of C++ includes porting the C++ ABI that accompanies GNU g++ to the Linux kernel, and to enable global constructors and destructors." So let's see - no constructors, no type checking, no exceptions, and using virtual functions requires the programmer to write the glue code that programmers want to use C++ to *avoid* writing. Sounds like "We stripped out all the reasons programmers want to use C++ just so we can say we use C++ in the kernel". So, other than wank value, what *actual* advantages are there to using this limited subset of C++ in the kernel?
Description: PGP signature
- Prev by Date: RE: kbuild & C++
- Next by Date: Re: [git patch] fix DocBook build
- Previous by thread: Re: kbuild & C++
- Next by thread: Re: kbuild & C++