C++ in the kernel

Erik Wikström Erik-wikstrom at telia.com
Mon Jan 5 05:29:19 PST 2009

On 2009-01-05 12:33, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:06:13PM +0100, Michael Neumann wrote:
>> This question bugs me since a quite long time so I write it down...
>> FreeBSD had a long thread about pros and cons of using C++
>> in the kernel here [1].
>> I'm undecided whether it would be good to use C++ in the DragonFly kernel.
> Regardless of what folks decide, I ask that everyone keep one thing in
> mind (which so far in this thread has not been mentioned):
> This is an open-source project.  What guarantee is there that all
> members of the project (at the time, or in the future) are going to
> understand all the intricacies and C++ nomenclature?

> This story is not meant to reflect on C++ the language.  I hope readers
> understand the point of the story, and take into considerations the pros
> and cons of said choice.

That is a very important consideration, however I would like to point
out that for kernel development only a very limited subset of the C++
language would be used. I would assume that the most desirable features
would be 1) real classes with member-functions as opposed to structs and
functions that work on them, 2) inheritance, 3) constructors/
destructors, and 4) templates, which are quite easy to understand.

Of course, to be honest I don't see C++ in the kernel any time soon (or
ever) since I expect that just the work on getting the infrastructure in
place would be quite high (getting new to work as it should, probably
some compiler and linker issues, etc.).

Erik Wikström

More information about the Kernel mailing list