From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751361AbWDYERS (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2006 00:17:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751367AbWDYERS (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2006 00:17:18 -0400 Received: from dvhart.com ([64.146.134.43]:43732 "EHLO dvhart.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751361AbWDYERS (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2006 00:17:18 -0400 Message-ID: <444DA2CA.4060807@mbligh.org> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:17:14 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051013) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Avi Kivity Cc: Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Compiling C++ modules References: <1145911546.1635.54.camel@localhost.localdomain> <444D3D32.1010104@argo.co.il> In-Reply-To: <444D3D32.1010104@argo.co.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Avi Kivity wrote: > Alan Cox wrote: > >> There are a few anti C++ bigots around too, but the kernel choice of C >> was based both on rational choices and experimentation early on with the >> C++ compiler. > > Times have changed, though. The C++ compiler is much better now, and the > recent slew of error handling bugs shows that C is a very unsafe language. > > I think it's easy to show that the equivalent C++ code would be shorter, > faster, and safer. So ... what exactly are you waiting for? We await the results with baited breath. This slick C++ kernel of which you speak can surely not be far away. M.