linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/45] C++: Convert the kernel to C++

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 18:25:01 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: pinskia@...il.com, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/45] C++: Convert the kernel to C++

On 1/9/24 15:40, David Howells wrote:
> 
>> Both C and C++ has had a lot of development since 1999, and C++ has in fact,
>> in my personal opinion, finally "grown up" to be a better C for the kind of
>> embedded programming that an OS kernel epitomizes.
> 
> And gcc got rewritten in C++ some time back, so they have a vested interest.
> 

Indeed.

>>>    (8) 'virtual'.  Don't want virtual base classes, though virtual function
>>>        tables might make operations tables more efficient.
>>
>> Operations tables *are* virtual classes. virtual base classes make sense in a
>> lot of cases, and we de facto use them already.
> 
> You end up adding storage for a 'this' pointer for each virtual base class, I
> think - and then you may have extra fun if you inherit from two classes that
> both inherit the same virtual base class.  Abstract base classes that are just
> ops tables are probably fine, though.

My apologies, I meant *abstract* base classes, not *virtual*. To be 
honest, I don't think I have ever used virtual base classes in any other 
application than games (relating to physical objects), and barely even then.

	-hpa