From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751249AbWDXUgQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:36:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751248AbWDXUgP (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:36:15 -0400 Received: from uproxy.gmail.com ([66.249.92.169]:11488 "EHLO uproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751254AbWDXUgL convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:36:11 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Jsu9vHMcxKhienCQtMqw9lpamTRKZ69Pu6Wi5sNHtxmyG14CxGVf088zKiaGAuocSgwcCKYi2QCau9w3ytjjvAYPQV95XBySrxOLQ05S+RDRc5VJTNXUXnW2Rbgrdm9TgY/vFsyyNDcJ3nvpua6k9/RTV8oQv6zcht0hhw5qmH8= Message-ID: <82ecf08e0604241336g73352b2r653365314f8b13a5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:36:09 -0300 From: "Thiago Galesi" To: "Gary Poppitz" Subject: Re: C++ pushback Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <4024F493-F668-4F03-9EB7-B334F312A558@iomega.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <4024F493-F668-4F03-9EB7-B334F312A558@iomega.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org OK, let's get a couple of things clear... No one here "hates" C++ per se. It is a tool, and every tool has its purpose. Using C++ in the kernel has not been deemed apropriate for several reasons. There are several (other) reasons to make the Linux Kernel C only, this has been discussed, trolled, flamed, argued, come, gone, etc, etc FAQs and searches are your friend there. In your scenario, you have two possible option (IMHO) 1 - Port your existing code to C 2- keep it in C++, keep it in user level and have a simple file system driver communicating with your existing code (I think FUSE applies to the situation) Thiago On 4/24/06, Gary Poppitz wrote: > > We know they are "incompatible", why else would we allow "private" and > > "struct class" in the kernel source if we some how expected it to work > > with a C++ compiler? > > > I can see that this was intentional, not an oversight. > > If there is a childish temper tantrum mentality about C++ then I have > no reason or desire to be on this list. > > Grow up. > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >