Re: C++ pushback

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

On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:09:47 +0400, Nikita Danilov <nikita@clusterfs.com> wrote:

> J.A. Magallon writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
>  > 
>  > 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 :).
> 
> The difference is that second fragment doesn't mention GFP_KERNEL, so
> it's most likely wrong. Moreover it's shorter only because it places
> multiple initializations on the same like, hence, contradicting
> CodingStyle.
> 

Well, you could always have 

   sbi = new(GPF_KERNEL) SuperBlock;

And CodingStyle was written for C.

Just to make a thing clear: I'm not advocating to include C++ support in
current kernel. I just say that the only valid argument is that
'KERNEL IS C', and interfacing C with C++ just would add bloat and errors.
There is no technical argument to reject to write an OS kernel in C++.
It would not be slower not more complicated, and it will be probably safer
because it leaves less things (from thost you always _must_ do) to
programmers memories.

--
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