Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 11:19:37 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Bruce M Simpson <bms@incunabulum.net> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: C++ in the kernel Message-ID: <13151.1193483977@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 27 Oct 2007 11:49:59 %2B0100." <472317D7.8010406@incunabulum.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <472317D7.8010406@incunabulum.net>, Bruce M Simpson writes: >I could not find any reference to this discussion in a mailing list >search. I did read the article at: http://wiki.freebsd.org/K. It sounds >like a new and interesting approach to a C-like language (* see footnote). > >However, that was not the original topic of my thread, which is to gauge >interest for C++ runtime support in FreeBSD and if anyone is already >doing this. One major problem I see about a C++ runtime, is that it puts even worse constraints on our compiler situation, raising the bar significantly for any non GPLv3 compiler we might consider. K, as envisioned, has the opposite effect, it gives us a layer of isolation from the backend C-compiler, a layer which we have 100% control with, and can bend to our requirements, rather than have to live with the sometimes arbitrary and often insensitive choices by the GCC crowd. Absent actual code for a K compiler, this is largely a philosophical discussion with little applicability, but the strategic impact of supporting C++ in the kernel should not be overlooked just because of that detail. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?13151.1193483977>