Re: C++ pushback

[Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw@lug-owl.de>]

On Wed, 2006-04-26 13:09:38 -0700, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > There's one _practical_ thing you need to keep in mind: you'll either
> > need 'C++'-clean kernel headers (to interface low-level kernel
> > functions) or a separate set of headers.
> 
> I suspect it would be easier to just do
> 
> 	extern "C" {
> 	#include <linux/xyz.h>
> 	...
> 	}
> 
> instead of having anything really C++'aware in the headers.

...but you need to admit that your left hand tried to make your right
hand not typing this, didn't it?

>  - the language just sucks. Sorry, but it does.
>  - some of the C features we use may or may not be usable from C++ 
>    (statement expressions?)

In the constructor pathes, I expect higher stack usage than we now
have.

>  - a lot of the C++ features just won't be supported sanely (ie the kernel 
>    infrastructure just doesn't do exceptions for C++, nor will it run any 
>    static constructors etc).

So what actually can be made useable (and what actually makes sense):

  * Classes with public and private funct^Wmembers, constructors.
  * Namespaces? Don't think they're all _that_ useful for us.
  * Static constructors probably won't fly.

> Anyway, it should all be doable. Not necessarily even very hard. But I 
> doubt it's worth it.

I guess if somebody has a large portion of well-separated C++ code
(eg. a complete and complex filesystem), it would be easier to write
some glue code to "run" the C++ code with the kernel.

Though it would be even easier to use FUSE's bindings:-)

MfG, JBG

-- 
Jan-Benedict Glaw       jbglaw@lug-owl.de    . +49-172-7608481             _ O _
"Eine Freie Meinung in  einem Freien Kopf    | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg  _ _ O
 für einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger"  | im Internet! |   im Irak!   O O O
ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature