From: Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com>
To: Christer Weinigel <christer@weinigel.se>
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ modules
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 21:21:44 +0300
User-Agent: KMail/1.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200605022121.44831.a1426z@gawab.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1495
Lines: 47

Christer Weinigel <christer@weinigel.se> wrote:
>> eCos is nice enough -- because it's mostly C :)
>
> And those parts that are C++ (from a 2 year old eCos dist) won't
> compile with a modern g++.

C++ is OO, and OO is great!  OO is the natural way of doing things, and 
allows one to concentrate on the issues at hand, while leaving the 
nitty-gritty to the compiler to decide.

And this is the problem, as kernel development is highly sensitive to 
compiler output, and which is why there are parts written in asm and others 
in C.

So rewriting C with C++ would be as dumb as rewriting asm with C.

But there may be certain higher level parts in the kernel that could benefit 
from rewriting C with C++, much the same as lower level parts have benefited 
from rewriting them in asm.

So we have a situation like this:

	low-level written in asm when needed

	main-level written in C mostly

	high-level written in C++ when needed

Note though, C++ is not currently viable for kernel development, due to its 
enormous overhead generated by immature compiler technology.  Once this has 
matured, there should be no problem.

> -- 
> "Just how much can I get away with and still go to heaven?"

Just know that HE is one and only one.

Thanks!

--
Al

-
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/