Re: C++ pushback

[Grant Coady]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:17:58 -0500, Roman Kononov <kononov195-far@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
-
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/