C++ in the kernel

[Alfred Perlstein]

* Poul-Henning Kamp <phk at phk.freebsd.dk> [071102 13:53] wrote:
> In message <20071102203803.GO77844 at elvis.mu.org>, Alfred Perlstein writes:
> 
> >A policy that might be interesting is to do something along
> >the lines of what we do with GPL, basically, core code in the
> >kernel can not be based on nor depend on it.
> 
> I don't know if this is realistically possible, without some
> kind of intermediate layer to translate, for instance inline
> assembly.
> 
> But apart from it being a lot of, currently, pointless work that
> would really gain us anything, as long as no viable competitors to
> GCC exists, I fully agree:  Either you take portability seriously
> (ie: run with any compiler) or you handle portability seriously
> (ie: run it through our frontend, so any compiler can cope).
> 
> But in any case, this is all very theoretical until there are
> a non-comical alternative compiler for us.

I really don't understand what you're saying here.

All I'm saying is that if we choose to "support" C++ (or any other
language), we can come to a compromise where core code does not
depend on it, at least for some timeframe so as to ease people's
fears.

I would honestly hate to see anything added and within a week or a
month there are key systems that _used to work just fine_ retrofitted
to depend on said compiler/tool/preprocessor/whatever.

Such things need to be vetted through optional components first for
a time period to ensure that they are viable and at least somewhat
future proof.

-- 
- Alfred Perlstein