Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:39:14 +0000 From: Bruce M Simpson <bms@incunabulum.net> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: C++ in the kernel Message-ID: <472B52B2.9040901@incunabulum.net> In-Reply-To: <13151.1193483977@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <13151.1193483977@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > 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. > I agree with this point. I am certainly not suggesting that we become more, not less, tightly coupled to a particular vendor's compiler. I believe Stroustrup would also agree on the first -- it must have occured to him how to save people from reinventing the runtime support wheel every time a new compiler comes out. I agree with your other point regarding the isolation K seems to offer in this respect. Re your last point, scanning the feeds it sounds like Linux are having problems with GCC code generation too right now. Anyway, I hope people do not form the opinion from this thread that there is an Operation Impending C++ Doom up my sleeve -- there ain't -- however I do feel the need to give people a whiff of the C++ coffee. It is an advanced tool which has a high learning curve; it does have a place in kernels and embedded systems; it's an industry fact of life; like anything in life, it has its good and its bad. Thanks for informed debate! BMS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?472B52B2.9040901>