Re: C++ pushback

Roman Kononov
2006-04-27T16:18:46Z

On 04/24/2006 15:02, Gary Poppitz wrote:
>> We know they are "incompatible", why else would we allow "private" and
>> "struct class" in the kernel source if we some how expected it to work
>> with a C++ compiler?
>
>
> I can see that this was intentional, not an oversight.
>
> If there is a childish temper tantrum mentality about C++ then I have no
> reason or desire to be on this list.
>
> Grow up.

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?

Regards
Roman