From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030336AbWD1JX4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Apr 2006 05:23:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030340AbWD1JX4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Apr 2006 05:23:56 -0400 Received: from gateway.argo.co.il ([194.90.79.130]:47884 "EHLO argo2k.argo.co.il") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030336AbWD1JXx (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Apr 2006 05:23:53 -0400 Message-ID: <4451DF24.20408@argo.co.il> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:23:48 +0300 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060313) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sam Ravnborg CC: Al Viro , Linus Torvalds , Jan-Benedict Glaw , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Schwartz Subject: Re: C++ pushback References: <20060426034252.69467.qmail@web81908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060426200134.GS25520@lug-owl.de> <20060426201909.GN27946@ftp.linux.org.uk> <20060426213700.GB22894@mars.ravnborg.org> In-Reply-To: <20060426213700.GB22894@mars.ravnborg.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Apr 2006 09:23:51.0539 (UTC) FILETIME=[76692C30:01C66AA5] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sam Ravnborg wrote: > The original question was related to port existing C++ code to be used > as a kernel module. > Magically this always ends up in long discussions about how applicable > C++ is the the kernel as such which was not the original intent. > > So following the original intent it does not matter what subset is > sanely used, only what adaptions is needed to kernel proper to support > modules written in C++. > > Here at last is a sane response. If the kernel were enhanced/bastardized (pick one) to support C++ modules, we could evaluate how C++ actually does in terms of runtime and developer performance. > But I have seen no patches this time either, so required modifications > are yet to be identified. > Since such patches are sure to be rejected (apparently renaming 'struct class' would wreak havoc on the development process), I doubt that they will appear. Not to mention the attacks on the submitters that would follow. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.