Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 11 Jan 2024 21:52:45 -0500 | From | Kent Overstreet <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/45] C++: Convert the kernel to C++ |
| |
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 06:23:10PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > On 1/10/24 09:57, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 11:25:29AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > > For what it's worth, I'm totally in favor of C++20 as well. I've > > > mostly written C++17 as of late and it is really nice to me, but I'm > > > genuinely excited about C++20 and newer revisions. > > > > > > I also think that Linux adopting C++ and intentionally adopting safety > > > features that exist and are being added to C++ over time would also > > > further encourage the ecosystem to use them as well as make the Linux > > > codebase much easier to work with. > > > > Can someone speak to whether the C++ standards committee and C++ > > compiler implementations are more or less unreasonable compared to > > their C counterparts regarding compilers being able to arbitrary > > statement reordering, or other random futzing all in the name of > > better benchmarks, but which make life a living nightmware for honest > > kernel developers? > > > > I suspect that the gcc and clang developers are more motivated these days > about such issues since they are now using C++ as their own implementation > language. > > I had a member of the C++ standards committee reach out to me already, and > I'm going to have a discussion with him next week. > > I have a lot more to say in response to all the (excellent!) comments, but > I'm about to leave for a long birthday weekend, so my apologies if I don't > get back to things until next week.
Happy birthday, Peter :)
Would this cause any issues for the Rust people, e.g. linking? I'd like to hear their input.
| |