Re: [PATCH 00/45] C++: Convert the kernel to C++

[Kent Overstreet]

On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 06:23:10PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/10/24 09:57, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 11:25:29AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > 
> > > For what it's worth, I'm totally in favor of C++20 as well. I've
> > > mostly written C++17 as of late and it is really nice to me, but I'm
> > > genuinely excited about C++20 and newer revisions.
> > > 
> > > I also think that Linux adopting C++ and intentionally adopting safety
> > > features that exist and are being added to C++ over time would also
> > > further encourage the ecosystem to use them as well as make the Linux
> > > codebase much easier to work with.
> > 
> > Can someone speak to whether the C++ standards committee and C++
> > compiler implementations are more or less unreasonable compared to
> > their C counterparts regarding compilers being able to arbitrary
> > statement reordering, or other random futzing all in the name of
> > better benchmarks, but which make life a living nightmware for honest
> > kernel developers?
> > 
> 
> I suspect that the gcc and clang developers are more motivated these days
> about such issues since they are now using C++ as their own implementation
> language.
> 
> I had a member of the C++ standards committee reach out to me already, and
> I'm going to have a discussion with him next week.
> 
> I have a lot more to say in response to all the (excellent!) comments, but
> I'm about to leave for a long birthday weekend, so my apologies if I don't
> get back to things until next week.

Happy birthday, Peter :)

Would this cause any issues for the Rust people, e.g. linking? I'd like
to hear their input.