Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 00:43:09 -0700 From: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: bms@incunabulum.net, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: C++ in the kernel Message-ID: <20071028074310.233895B3E@mail.bitblocks.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 28 Oct 2007 00:03:00 MDT." <20071028.000300.-861062412.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> scripting languages, will never be in the kernel. The old vmkernel.el
> joke will never happen either (although there's been rumors of an
> in-kernel compiled-lisp interprater floating around). C++ support,
> driven by people's experience with OS X, will continue to be a highly
> desired feature.
Are you thinking of Bill Bland's Schemix for linux?
$ echo '(+ 1 2 3)' > /dev/schemix
$ cat /dev/schemix
6
$ echo '(define foo (kernel-lambda (char*) printk))' > /dev/schemix
$ echo '(foo blah blah blah)' >/dev/schemix
$ dmesg |tail -1
blah blah blah
Speaking of vmkernel.el do you know about Movitz (Commom
Lisp on bare metal)?
Of course, this has nothing to do with why people want C++ in kernel!
> However, having C++ support would allow the extreme
> FreeBSD users to suffer or benefit from C++ in their kernels without
> having to reinvent the base wheel. I think the arguments are strong
> enough for this, but not so strong as to accept it into the base at
> this time without some compelling proof that it can be done, in
> FreeBSD, without extreme pain.
It will be the proverbial camel's nose in the tent. A subset
of C++ is attractive for kernel work but it will be hard to
hold the line at that. How long before people clamor for
things like
TailQ<Mount> mount_list;
TailQ<Mount>::iterator mp;
for(mp = mount_list.begin(); mp != mount_list.end(); mp+) {
...
}
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071028074310.233895B3E>