From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751717AbWD0V74 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:59:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751724AbWD0V74 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:59:56 -0400 Received: from relay01.mail-hub.dodo.com.au ([203.220.32.149]:8102 "EHLO relay01.mail-hub.dodo.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751719AbWD0V7z (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:59:55 -0400 From: Grant Coady To: Roman Kononov Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: C++ pushback Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 07:59:51 +1000 Organization: http://bugsplatter.mine.nu/ Message-ID: References: <4024F493-F668-4F03-9EB7-B334F312A558@iomega.com> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:17:58 -0500, Roman Kononov wrote: >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? There's a document: CodingStyle You seem to be arguing where the kernelspace / userspace boundary line is. C++ is outside kernelspace. Grant.