From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965164AbWD0QSq (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:18:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965165AbWD0QSq (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:18:46 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:49566 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965164AbWD0QSp (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:18:45 -0400 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Roman Kononov Subject: Re: C++ pushback Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:17:58 -0500 Message-ID: References: <4024F493-F668-4F03-9EB7-B334F312A558@iomega.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-68-255-17-86.dsl.emhril.ameritech.net User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308) In-Reply-To: <4024F493-F668-4F03-9EB7-B334F312A558@iomega.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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