Jason Slagle wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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 applicati
John Baldwin wrote:
On Tuesday 11 July 2006 12:33, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: and OS X both of which I've written a PCI driver for) we require device
: driver writers to go through a lot more hoops to do certain
M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
V lav Haisman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 decidi
Why do you all consider importing C++ code to FreeBSD kernel to be so
complicated at the beginning?
Matthias Andree wrote:
(please don't Cc me on list replies; chopping down the Cc list)
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just as you said, C++ is more complicated than C. However,
Dag-Erling [iso-8859-1] Sm grav wrote:
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Tuesday 11 July 2006 10:57, Dag-Erling Sm grav wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > What's more, can the "object model" function really as OpenDarwin's
> > IOKit class model?
> Does it need to?
He's trying t
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 10:45:52PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
John Baldwin wrote:
On Tuesday 11 July 2006 10:57, Dag-Erling Sm grav wrote:
> For example, I think C++ exception handling is really poorly suited for
> low-level code.
Exception handling is required by the standard, even for freestanding
implementations.
Standards aside, in Darwin, the C++
Dag-Erling [iso-8859-1] Sm grav wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But "-ffreestanding" doesn't work with C++.
While the C++ standard does define hosted and freestanding
implementations, its definition is different from (and less useful
than) that in the C standard. For instance, the C++ sta
Dag-Erling [iso-8859-1] Sm grav wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But prior to long-term discussion, please commit my 4 patches
firstly. They are nearly CPP-independent and do no harm to current
FreeBSD kernel.
We don't do the kind of changes you propose without discussion.
--- kern.mk.or
Joseph Koshy wrote:
I would write my kernel module in C++, just like IOKit
of OpenDarwin. Thus, all conflicts against C++ in current
FreeBSD kernel source must be swept out firstly.
Your patch is missing the following:
- runtime support for static constructors and destructors
- runtime supp
10 matches
Mail list logo
