kern/99979: Get Ready for Kernel Module in C++

[Matthias Andree]

(please don't Cc me on list replies; chopping down the Cc list)

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, mag at intron.ac wrote:

> Just as you said, C++ is more complicated than C. However, without
> C++ exception and other advanced features, it hasn't brought much
> complexity to C++ runtime library. Early C++ compiler even translates
> C++ code into C code before real compilation.

But what's the point of C++ if it is mutilated below minimum standard
compliance levels so that you can no longer call it C++?

This discussion has been through for other systems such as Linux long
ago, and it wasn't lack of manpower, but lack of technical feasibility,
or in other words, what was still useful for a kernel wasn't that much
different from C any more. C99 already adressed several concerns of C89,
and ISTR that FreeBSD kernels are C99 code these days.

> We can judge whether a C++ feature can or cannot be imported into FreeBSD
> kernel by assemble code generated by GNU CC.

Great, make the whole kernel depend on compiler internals.
Can you imagine a single vendor who'd have interest in hauling so many
dependencies into their software and handle all the support? I can't.

Write a C stub and put the rest into userspace where C++ works.

> For example, I think C++ exception handling is really poorly suited for
> low-level code.

Which chops off one of C++'s legs to stand on.

> Well, you can LOOK DOWN UPON me, but I believe you cannot throw doubt on
> FreeBSD's actuality: so weak USB support (kernel crash easier than many
> other OSs that we laughed at and that we are laughing at), so weak PCI
> device support.

Talking of USB, have you ever used a USB 2.0 Hi-Speed hub (single TT)
with Linux and plugged TWO devices into it and see Linux fail to talk to
the device you plugged in later? No? If so, you have zero clue how bad
USB support can get. And that's not the only problem Linux USB has had
or still has.

> Please look at files in /sys/pci/ and /sys/dev/*/. Why do so many PCI
> device drivers repeat:
> 
>    pci_read_config( ... )
> ...
>    sc->vr_res = bus_alloc_resource_any( ... );
> ...
>    sc->vr_irq = bus_alloc_resource_any( ... );
> ...
> 
> Is this kind of awful writing just of FreeBSD's style?
> 
> In contrast, with C++, we can avoid many code repeating among device
> drivers.

How would C++ avoid such? Generic programming, RTTI support and such
stuff requires an awful lot of compile-time code generation and runtime
library support.

> If we would have constructed an object model in C++, a programmer who
> master Microsoft MFC, Darwin I/O Kit could easily write a device drive
> with the device's hardware data sheet.

And errata, and talking to the device happens in C-like programming
anyways...

-- 
Matthias Andree