Keith Owens wrote:
[...]
> Interesting concept, linking a module with libg++. Would that be a
> dynamic or static link?
>
> If it is dynamic then you can absolutely forget about loading the
> module into the kernel, there is no way that modutils will ever support
> that. If it is a static link
** Reply to message from Keith Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 17 Oct 2000
00:43:58 +1100
> Interesting concept, linking a module with libg++. Would that be a
> dynamic or static link?
>
> If it is dynamic then you can absolutely forget about loading the
> module into the kernel, there is no
Mark Salisbury wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > > On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Generic Kernel Geek wrote:
> > >
> > > C++ sucks for kernel dev, because I say it does.
>
> the original-original post was somebody asking why not make t
didn't say I wanted to do it, just that it could be done.
my point was that a god-awful 365 message flamewar was unnecessary, and
removing C++ keywords from system headers is not that big a deal.
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Keith Owens wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 08:50:24 -0400,
> Mark Salisbury <[
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 08:50:24 -0400,
Mark Salisbury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>the original-original post was somebody asking why not make the kernel headers
>C++ friendly.
>all he wanted was the c++ reserved words removed from / kept out of the headers.
>that way, if they for some reason want to
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Generic Kernel Geek wrote:
> >
> > C++ sucks for kernel dev, because I say it does.
the original-original post was somebody asking why not make the kernel headers
C++ friendly.
al
6 matches
Mail list logo
