On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 07:11:36AM +0000, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > I can't say whether putting libstdc++ in a kernel module is a bad thing
> > before I see one. This is a skel. code:
>
> > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 271528 Oct 10 09:54
>/usr/lib/libstdc++-3-libc6.2-2-2.10.0.so
> > orion:opt$ ls -al /usr/lib/libstdc++-3-libc6.2-2-2.10.0.a
> > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 476494 Oct 10 09:54
>/usr/lib/libstdc++-3-libc6.2-2-2.10.0.a
>
> Don't forget to include libc.so here -- you know libstdc++ won't run
> without it. Let's see ... Debian-unstable glibc 2.1.95 here ...
>
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1057576 Oct 13 13:45 /lib/libc.so.6
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2445036 Oct 13 13:47 /usr/lib/libc.a
>
> Heh.
Maybe we can close this thread here :)
Both of C and C++ is turing compatible so which is written in C++ can be done
in C too. So anyone can write kernel modules in C++ and search for a C++ -> C
converter ;-) But in this case WHY don't people write your code in C directly ?
IF someone can code C++ he must know coding in C too. From the point of view
of this kind of people, C++ gives him some plus they would like to use.
BUT Linux kernel is written in C, and the problems (interfacing with C,
implementing standard C++ libs inside the kernel etc) will reduce this plus
into a negative value imho. C++ is basically C with OOP extensions (and
some much more) so if someone can code C++ he can hapilly use C as well.
And note, that maintaining a multi-language software is much harder:
there're more hidden bugs, not every hacker can code in C++, etc ... etc ...
So imho: it does not worth ... (till' the entry kernel is written in C++ ...)
Please stop this thread, every messages try to explain the same thing against
each other ... The list should be used to share developmenting information
on Linux kernel and not starting a flame war.
- Gábor
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
