Re: Compiling C++ modules

[Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>]

Al Boldi wrote:
> Christer Weinigel <christer@weinigel.se> wrote:
> 
>>>eCos is nice enough -- because it's mostly C :)
>>
>>And those parts that are C++ (from a 2 year old eCos dist) won't
>>compile with a modern g++.
> 
> 
> C++ is OO,

But not a very good implementation of it :-(.

> and OO is great!  OO is the natural way of doing things, and 
> allows one to concentrate on the issues at hand, while leaving the 
> nitty-gritty to the compiler to decide.
> 
> And this is the problem, as kernel development is highly sensitive to 
> compiler output, and which is why there are parts written in asm and others 
> in C.
> 
> So rewriting C with C++ would be as dumb as rewriting asm with C.
> 
> But there may be certain higher level parts in the kernel that could benefit 
> from rewriting C with C++, much the same as lower level parts have benefited 
> from rewriting them in asm.
> 
> So we have a situation like this:
> 
> 	low-level written in asm when needed
> 
> 	main-level written in C mostly
> 
> 	high-level written in C++ when needed
> 
> Note though, C++ is not currently viable for kernel development, due to its 
> enormous overhead generated by immature compiler technology.  Once this has 
> matured, there should be no problem.
> 
> 
>>-- 
>>"Just how much can I get away with and still go to heaven?"
> 
> 
> Just know that HE is one and only one.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> --
> Al
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


-- 
Peter Williams                                   pwil3058@bigpond.net.au

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
  -- Ambrose Bierce