Re: C++ pushback

["J.A. Magallon" <jamagallon@able.es>]

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 22:52:12 +0100, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> On Llu, 2006-04-24 at 15:36 -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > C++ in the kernel is a BAD IDEA. C++ code can be written in such a 
> > convoluted manner as to be unmaintainable and unreadable.
> 
> So can C. 
> 
> > All of the hidden memory allocations from constructor/destructor 
> > operatings can and do KILL OS PERFORMANCE. 
> 
> This is one area of concern. Just as big a problem for the OS case is
> that the hidden constructors/destructors may fail.

Tell me what is the difference between:


    sbi = kmalloc(sizeof(*sbi), GFP_KERNEL);
    if (!sbi)
        return -ENOMEM;
    sb->s_fs_info = sbi;
    memset(sbi, 0, sizeof(*sbi));
    sbi->s_mount_opt = 0;
    sbi->s_resuid = EXT3_DEF_RESUID;
    sbi->s_resgid = EXT3_DEF_RESGID;

and

    SuperBlock() : s_mount_opt(0), s_resuid(EXT3_DEF_RESUID), s_resgid(EXT3_DEF_RESGID)
    {}

    ...
    sbi = new SuperBlock;
    if (!sbi)
        return -ENOMEM;

apart that you don't get members initalized twice and get a shorter code :).

--
J.A. Magallon <jamagallon()able!es>     \               Software is like sex:
werewolf!able!es                         \         It's better when it's free
Mandriva Linux release 2006.1 (Cooker) for i586
Linux 2.6.16-jam9 (gcc 4.1.1 20060330 (prerelease)) #1 SMP PREEMPT Tue

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature