Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-22581-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 12:57:55 -0500
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Neal Gompa <neal@gompa.dev>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>, jirislaby@kernel.org,
        dhowells@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        pinskia@gmail.com, kent.overstreet@linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/45] C++: Convert the kernel to C++
Message-ID: <20240110175755.GC1006537@mit.edu>
References: <938ebce3-74c5-4fcf-9de3-849271d3581d@kernel.org>
 <20240110130456.142763-1-neal@gompa.dev>
 <20240110155233.GA623732@nvidia.com>
 <CAEg-Je_P6-3PWNxM4HCzcgM=H4Y1vmywaM3gbwK0gAe0UVoZGw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAEg-Je_P6-3PWNxM4HCzcgM=H4Y1vmywaM3gbwK0gAe0UVoZGw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 11:25:29AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> 
> For what it's worth, I'm totally in favor of C++20 as well. I've
> mostly written C++17 as of late and it is really nice to me, but I'm
> genuinely excited about C++20 and newer revisions.
> 
> I also think that Linux adopting C++ and intentionally adopting safety
> features that exist and are being added to C++ over time would also
> further encourage the ecosystem to use them as well as make the Linux
> codebase much easier to work with.

Can someone speak to whether the C++ standards committee and C++
compiler implementations are more or less unreasonable compared to
their C counterparts regarding compilers being able to arbitrary
statement reordering, or other random futzing all in the name of
better benchmarks, but which make life a living nightmware for honest
kernel developers?

						- Ted