Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263702AbUASVZw (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:25:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263723AbUASVZw (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:25:52 -0500 Received: from kluizenaar.xs4all.nl ([213.84.184.247]:46672 "EHLO samwel.tk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263702AbUASVY6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:24:58 -0500 Message-ID: <400C4B17.3000003@samwel.tk> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:24:39 +0100 From: Bart Samwel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031221 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: root@chaos.analogic.com CC: Ashish sddf , Linux kernel Subject: Re: Compiling C++ kernel module + Makefile References: <20040116210924.61545.qmail@web12008.mail.yahoo.com> <200401171359.20381.bart@samwel.tk> <400C1682.2090207@samwel.tk> <400C37E3.5020802@samwel.tk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4770 Lines: 92 Richard B. Johnson wrote: [...] > I stand by my assertion that anybody who develops kernel > modules in C++, including MIT students, is arrogant. > > Let's see if C++ is in use in the kernel. At one time, some > of the tools that came with it were written in C++ (like ksymoops). > > Script started on Mon Jan 19 15:19:33 2004 > $ cd /usr/src/linux-2.4.24 > $ find . -name "*.cpp" > $ exit > exit > Script done on Mon Jan 19 15:20:25 2004 Just so that you know, the extension .cpp is typically used by Windows C++ programmers, on most other environments the usual extensions are .cc and .C. If you look for *.cc you find scripts/kconfig/qconf.cc, so the kernel toolset is not completely C++-free. Not that all of this matters. > Well, perhaps the kernel developers were ignorant. They didn't > write anything in C++. Maybe they were just too dumb to learn the > language? It seems you you assume I'm an arrogant Bjarne-hugging C++-lover. Where did you get that? It's probably in your mind, where everyone who suggests C++ is a Bjarne-hugging C++-lover. I'M NOT IN THE C++ CULT. I'M NOT SAYING THAT EVERYONE SHOULD PROGRAM IN C++. Hope this came across, you are now officially declared deaf. ;) > Maybe there is another reason: > The kernel development languages, as previously stated, were > defined at the project's inception to be the GNU C 'gcc' > compiler's "C" and extensions, and the 'as' (AT&T syntax) > assembler. Anybody can search the archives for the discussions > about using C++ in the kernel. Yeah, definitely. I fully agree that it's not wise to use C++ *in the base kernel*. The Linux project needs to maintain overall consistency, and one of the means of doing that is using a small, well-defined toolset -- in this case, as and gcc. Any large project needs language and coding standards. But we're not talking about the base kernel here. We're not talking about migrating the kernel to C++, or even modules that are part of the Linux kernel source. We're talking about *independent modules*. The kernel exports a module interface, and any binary driver that correctly hooks into the interface of the running kernel (using the correct calling conventions of the running kernel) and behaves properly (e.g., doesn't do stack unwinds over chunks of kernel functions etc.) can hook into it and do useful work. If somebody has decided that it would be worth it for his project to use C++ (without exceptions, rtti and the whole shebang) then so be it, why should you care? It's just binary code that hooks into the module interface, using the correct calling conventions. It doesn't do dirty stuff -- no exceptions, no RTTI, etcetera. It compiles into plain, module-interface conforming assembler, that can be compiled with -- you guessed it -- 'as', the AT&T syntax assembler. Yes, they're taking a risk. Their risk is that C++ can't import the kernel headers, or that C++ might someday need runtime support that cannot be ported into the kernel. It's *their risk*, not yours. Then why do you have a reason to get religious about this? They're not submitting this stuff for inclusion in the Linux source! > Any person, or group of persons, who is smart enough to > actually write some kernel code in C++, has proved that > they are not ignorant. Therefore, they have demonstrated > their arrogance. This logic is faulty. It is built upon the premise that (ignorant || arrogant). Not listening to warnings of others is not a sign of arrogance per se, it is only a sign of the presence of a different opinion. It assumes that the kernel developers are always right, and that everybody who is smart should listen to them, on penalty of being arrogant. Yes, these C++-loving people may be wrong (or they may not be), but that does not _automatically_ make them arrogant, they may simply have a different opinion -- right or wrong. If they are wrong, they are not arrogant, but simply *stupid*. If they are right, they are not arrogant either -- they may be arrogant *about it*, but that's just a manner of behaviour, and it's up to them if they behave in this way or not. Kernel developers do not prescribe what people can do with the kernel, this is part of the essence of "free". And as a result of that, they do not have the right to declare people arrogant when they do not listen. They have the right to *call* them that, but the only result of that is that all discussion on matters like these are smothered in religious wars. And that's a pity. -- Bart - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/