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]

Message-ID: <20240110175755.GC1006537@mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 12:57:55 -0500
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To: Neal Gompa <neal@...pa.dev>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, jirislaby@...nel.org,
        dhowells@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        pinskia@...il.com, kent.overstreet@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/45] C++: Convert the kernel to C++

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?

						- Ted