Re: [PATCH kvm-unit-tests 2/4] Introduce a C++ wrapper for the kvm APIs

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 11/28/2010 01:59 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> >
> >  FWIW, I still disagree with C++ and believe this code to be hardly readable.
>
> A major issue is existing tools.
>
> Using C++ would prevent us from using sparce for static code checking.

C++ static checking is way better than anything sparse offers.

Things like __user are easily done in C++.

> We should be adding more annotations instead of throwing existing ones
> out. ctags is also broken with C++ which will make it much harder
> for me to browse the codebase.

C++ does want a good IDE.

> C++ support in gdb has some limitations
> if you use overloading, exceptions, templates. The example posted here
> uses two of these, so it would be harder to debug.

I haven't seen issues with overloading or exceptions.  Templates are 
indeed harder to debug, simply because names can become very long.

> I also hoped we'll be able to adopt checkpatch at some point for coding
> style enforcement, C++ syntax is just too complex for a perl script to
> be of any use.

Not much of a loss IMO.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function