Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 23:46:11 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Dave Preece <dave.preece@kbgroup.co.nz> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Quickie: C++ statically linked into kernel? Message-ID: <200006190546.XAA53903@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:58:27 %2B1200." <67B808B0DD93D211ABEE0000B498356B02BCC2@internet.kbgroup.co.nz> References: <67B808B0DD93D211ABEE0000B498356B02BCC2@internet.kbgroup.co.nz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <67B808B0DD93D211ABEE0000B498356B02BCC2@internet.kbgroup.co.nz> Dave Preece writes: : > I implemented only new and delete : > and was able to get sample code to run in the kernel. : : Euuww. So the default new and delete need to be overloaded with the kernel : mode variety? (the three-parameter'd one from sys/malloc.h)? Right, OK. No. I implemented operator new() and operator delete() ala the standard and converted them in to calls to malloc. : > I punted at : > that point due to the pain in actually knowing if these things were : > being used or not. : : Due to the pain of not knowing if the overloaded new and delete were being : used? No. Due to the pain of the compiler creating things for me behind the schenes. Also, I had more instability in the kernel when I had this enabled for reasons unknown. Likely due to the 2.7.x g++ we had at the time. There were also some other problems that I don't recall now too that also lead me to the decision to punt. Sadly, I no longer have a copy of the stuff (I just looked). That was two disk crashes ago and was one of the reasons I converted to be a dues paying member of the church of the daily backup :-) Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200006190546.XAA53903>