Re: C++ pushback

[Roman Kononov]

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

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/