From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965131AbWD0Ou6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 10:50:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965135AbWD0Ou6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 10:50:58 -0400 Received: from pasmtp.tele.dk ([193.162.159.95]:25874 "EHLO pasmtp.tele.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965131AbWD0Ou6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 10:50:58 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:50:54 +0200 From: Sam Ravnborg To: Kyle Moffett Cc: Roman Kononov , LKML Kernel Subject: Re: C++ pushback Message-ID: <20060427145054.GA19502@mars.ravnborg.org> References: <20060426034252.69467.qmail@web81908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060426200134.GS25520@lug-owl.de> <6B929F57-12EB-4E91-A191-2F0DABB77962@mac.com> <445026EB.8010407@yahoo.com> <4EE8AD21-55B6-4653-AFE9-562AE9958213@mac.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4EE8AD21-55B6-4653-AFE9-562AE9958213@mac.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:37:05PM -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote: > > > >I agree, it would be a bad idea to compile the existing C code by g+ > >+. The good idea is to be able to produce new C++ modules etc. > > No, this is a reason why C++ modules are _not_ a good idea. If you > could write the module in C or C++, but in C++ it compiled 100-200% > slower, then you would write it in C. The original issue was the possibility to add support for C++ solely to support an existing implementation of a filesystem. Not to rewrite the kernel in C++, neither to encourage the use of C++. And with this in mind the figures above does not matter. Likewise does neiter of the many arguments in this thread. Now if the C++ fans could present what is needed to actually support building a module in C++ instead of arguing..... Sam