On 11/28/2010 01:59 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > FWIW, I still disagree with C++ and believe this code to be hardly readable. A major issue is existing tools. Using C++ would prevent us from using sparce for static code checking.
C++ static checking is way better than anything sparse offers. Things like __user are easily done in C++.
We should be adding more annotations instead of throwing existing ones out. ctags is also broken with C++ which will make it much harder for me to browse the codebase.
C++ does want a good IDE.
C++ support in gdb has some limitations if you use overloading, exceptions, templates. The example posted here uses two of these, so it would be harder to debug.
I haven't seen issues with overloading or exceptions. Templates are indeed harder to debug, simply because names can become very long.
I also hoped we'll be able to adopt checkpatch at some point for coding style enforcement, C++ syntax is just too complex for a perl script to be of any use.
Not much of a loss IMO. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
