On 04/24/2006 15:02, Gary Poppitz wrote:
We know they are "incompatible", why else would we allow "private" and
"struct class" in the kernel source if we some how expected it to work
with a C++ compiler?
I can see that this was intentional, not an oversight.
If there is a childish temper tantrum mentality about C++ then I have no
reason or desire to be on this list.
Grow up.
Please let me summarize:
1) Many people are more efficient writing C++ modules.
2) It does not make sense to rewrite existing C code in
another language.
3) Kernel H-files are not compilable by g++.
4) The H-files use C++ keywords.
5) The H-files use member initialization syntax, unsupported
by g++.
6) The H-files use empty structures which are not empty in
g++.
4), 5) and 6) are to be fixed if we want to be g++-friendly. I am not
aware of any other issues. Features like static constructors and
exceptions are not strictly necessary for successful C++ programming.
4) must be trivial.
5) is less trivial but still doable. Can we ask g++ folks?
6) looks rather painful.
What do you think?
Regards
Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
