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

[mag at intron.ac]

M. Warner Losh wrote:

> In message: <44B2D2DF.2000401 at sh.cvut.cz>
>             V  lav Haisman <V.Haisman at sh.cvut.cz> writes:
> : Deciding that some features are bad beforehand, before you evaluate them
> : is IMO bad idea. Let interested people write a bunch of C++ modules with
> : the complete language before deciding on what shouldn't be used.
> 
> There's actually a fair amount of experience with people doing C++ in
> FreeBSD kernels.  People have been doing things with it for about 8
> years now.  There are significant performance issues with even C code
> compiled as C++.  It is possible to write fast C++ for kernel work,
> but it is also very easy to write really bad C++ for kernel work.
> Easier than bad C code.

Currently, GNU CC has made great advance in binary code execution
efficiency. And Intel C++ Compiler is also an excellent one. We can
evaluate them by assemble code generated by them.

I would repeat several sentences in my last reply.
Why would people write Windows application with rather MFC/ATL/.NET 
Framework than direct Windows API? 
Why is gtkmm framework created for GTK+? 
Would you write a X11 application with original X11 API, without QT or 
other X11 toolkit? 

I believe the answer is that all programmers are human begins, not
machines. Human programmer would reduce brainwork, even if an API
package/wrapper slightly reduces running efficiency.


> 
> There's reasons that people here are somewhat skeptical about using
> C++ in the kernel.
> 
> Warner
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-hackers at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                From Beijing, China