Re: C++ pushback

[Avi Kivity]

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.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/