| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20071203165347.GJ2308@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 11:53:47 -0500 From: lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen) To: Avi Kivity <avi@...o.co.il> Cc: Ben Crowhurst <Ben.Crowhurst@...llatravel.co.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Kernel Development & Objective-C On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 09:59:31PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > C also requires a (very minimal) runtime. And I don't see how having a > runtime disqualifies a language from being usable in a kernel; the > runtime is just one more library, either supplied by the compiler or by > the kernel. Well the majority of C syntax requires no runtime library. There are some system call like things that you often want that need a library (like malloc and such), but those aren't really part of C itself. Of course without malloc and printf and file i/o calls the program would probably be a bit boring. I have written some small C programs without a runtime, where the few things I needed where implemented in assembly and poked the hardware directly and called from the C program. > Object orientation in C leaves much to be desired; see the huge number > of void pointers and container_of()s in the kernel. As a programming language, C leaves much to be desired. -- Len Sorensen -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists