On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 09:38:51AM +1200, Ian Collins wrote: > On 08/20/10 09:33 AM, Nicolas Williams wrote: > >Any driver C++ code would still need a C++ run-time. Either you must > >statically link it in, or you'll have a problem with multiple drivers > >using different C++ run-times. If you statically link in the run-time, > >then you're bloating the text of the kernel. If you're not then you > >have a problem. C++ is bad because of its ABI issues, really. > > > You snipped the bit where I said > > "Drivers and kernel modules are a good example; in that world you > have to live without the runtime library (which is dynamic only). > So you are effectively just using C++ as a superset of C with all > the benefits that offers." > > So you basically loose the C++ specific parts of the standard > library and exceptions. But you still have the built in features of > the language.
I'm not sure it's that easy to avoid the C++ run-time when you're coding. And anyways, the temptation to build classes that can be used elsewhere becomes rather strong. IMO C++ in the kernel is asking for trouble. And C++ in user-land? Same thing: you'll end up wanting to turn parts of your application into libraries, and then some other developer will want to use those in their C++ app, and then you run into the ABI issues all over again. Nico -- _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
