Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 11:40:59 -0700 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Making C++11 a hard requirement for FreeBSD Message-ID: <CAJ-VmonsywstTVEBZxhikCPr_iOoCrTzkGRnbKk1ETV9xaCM0g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <29630.1507308468@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <CANCZdfq5=KRp4NYKsc15gyS9C7CxrBFxcKQLPwnb_0oPb15vJw@mail.gmail.com> <2116882.XEKuxOb729@ralph.baldwin.cx> <20171006072010.ygq3k5ygwxykk4nb@ivaldir.net> <29630.1507308468@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6 October 2017 at 09:47, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > If we allow C++ in libc, it should not merely be for the convenience > of a few programmers, but because we have a vision for how it that > makes the world, or at least FreeBSD, a better place. > > Having C++ in libc is no trivial detail, there is a number of areas > where this causes bootstrapping issues and conflicts. > > We can solve those issues with unsightly local hacks, most > notably a bogo-malloc to malloc while C++ constructs jemalloc. > > But hand on heart, we all know that is a bad idea, all of us have > been down that road before, and we also know that there is no way > to be a little bit pregnant. > > The other way, the right way, to accomodate the jemalloc request > is to go all in. > > Nothing in the ISO verbiage says that you cannot have C and C++ > runtimes in the same library, as long as your linker knows the zip > code of it. > > Libc as a combined C and C++ runtime can be implemented a lot cleaner > than a libc which hides C++ components in the closet. > > So that is my input to this question: > > Either we tell the jemalloc people "sorry, it's called libc for a > reason" or we decide to make our libc a native C *and* C++ runtime. > > I see no sane or even possible "middle ground" or compromise position. I don't mind it as long as it's "no C++ runtime bloat please". But yes, I also feel the pain of where you start that path and then suddenly you find you're al in that path. (I face this at work right now on linux platforms because a "little C++" becomes .. not little.) -adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmonsywstTVEBZxhikCPr_iOoCrTzkGRnbKk1ETV9xaCM0g>