From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964849AbWDZUTM (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:19:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964857AbWDZUTM (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:19:12 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:684 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964849AbWDZUTM (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:19:12 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:19:09 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Jan-Benedict Glaw , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Schwartz Subject: Re: C++ pushback Message-ID: <20060426201909.GN27946@ftp.linux.org.uk> References: <20060426034252.69467.qmail@web81908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060426200134.GS25520@lug-owl.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 01:09:38PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > The real problem with C++ for kernel modules is: > > - the language just sucks. Sorry, but it does. > - some of the C features we use may or may not be usable from C++ > (statement expressions?) > - the compilers are slower, and less reliable. This is _less_ of an issue > these days than it used to be (at least the reliability part), but it's > still true. > - a lot of the C++ features just won't be supported sanely (ie the kernel > infrastructure just doesn't do exceptions for C++, nor will it run any > static constructors etc). - a lot of C++ advocates agree that some subset could be used sanely, but there's no agreement as to _which_ subset would that be.