From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 2 19:43:28 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 275DF16A41A; Fri, 2 Nov 2007 19:43:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bms@incunabulum.net) Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com (out1.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E061B13C49D; Fri, 2 Nov 2007 19:43:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bms@incunabulum.net) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.internal [10.202.2.41]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4A10451A6; Fri, 2 Nov 2007 12:39:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heartbeat2.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.161]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 02 Nov 2007 12:39:15 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: Xygx/WwiT/YJyJhDllFrKq0ysbQIRfOkybDuEeeaB7eT 1194021555 Received: from empiric.lon.incunabulum.net (82-35-112-254.cable.ubr07.dals.blueyonder.co.uk [82.35.112.254]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AC46274E6; Fri, 2 Nov 2007 12:39:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <472B52B2.9040901@incunabulum.net> Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:39:14 +0000 From: Bruce M Simpson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070928) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Poul-Henning Kamp References: <13151.1193483977@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <13151.1193483977@critter.freebsd.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alfred Perlstein , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: C++ in the kernel X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 19:43:28 -0000 Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > One major problem I see about a C++ runtime, is that it puts even > worse constraints on our compiler situation, raising the bar > significantly for any non GPLv3 compiler we might consider. > I agree with this point. I am certainly not suggesting that we become more, not less, tightly coupled to a particular vendor's compiler. I believe Stroustrup would also agree on the first -- it must have occured to him how to save people from reinventing the runtime support wheel every time a new compiler comes out. I agree with your other point regarding the isolation K seems to offer in this respect. Re your last point, scanning the feeds it sounds like Linux are having problems with GCC code generation too right now. Anyway, I hope people do not form the opinion from this thread that there is an Operation Impending C++ Doom up my sleeve -- there ain't -- however I do feel the need to give people a whiff of the C++ coffee. It is an advanced tool which has a high learning curve; it does have a place in kernels and embedded systems; it's an industry fact of life; like anything in life, it has its good and its bad. Thanks for informed debate! BMS