"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
>
> The [new] and constructor/destructor operations create hidden memory
> allocations in C++ that can blow performance in kernel "fast paths".
That is designed to decrease the number of syscalls, not to increase
them. Besides, in a successful C++ design memory allocation would
be encapsulated in allocator classes as in the C++ standard library.
It lets you manage the memory the way you want it, specify in an
abstract way and yet achieve this with efficiency. For example, I'd
written a very simple & efficient allocator that did only a single
big alloc and free for a graph partitioning program. SGI's STL
Programmer's Guide has some documentation on allocators at
URI http://www.sgi.com/Technology/STL/ . The thing is memory management
is something beginner programmers have difficulty with in every
language. [Of course, you don't have to use allocator classes. You
can do it any way you'd like. It'd be better, though.] Default STL
allocators are quite efficient, and may be used generally. The good part
is that containers don't try to handle locks by themselves.
> Writing kernel code in C++ is never a good idea because of this problem,
> and the fact that with function overloading, it's possible for someone
> to write code that is so difficult to follow, it's unmaintainable.
As I said, I don't think it's a C++ specific problem. A lot of C
programs suffer from bad memory and I/O code, too.
Function/Operator overloading does give inexperienced programmers
the opportunity to create semantic traps. It should be used when it
is required. If the function overloading is used so that semantic
similarity is preserved, it has its affordances. A similar argument
goes for operator overloading.
After all, an inexperienced programmer wouldn't be able to write
a maintainable kernel module in C | C++.
> MS
> wrote a large portion of W2K in C++, which is one reason it's hard to
> debug, and slow. C++ also puts in jump tables with mangled names, and
> is very difficult to debug at the assembler level.
Which jump tables do you refer to? Those [vtables] come into play
only when you use virtual function calls, which must be used for
high-level functions. You can write a kernel module without using any.
C++ doesn't require you to employ polymorphism.
Windows isn't bad because it's [largely] written in C++. It's bad because
it's written by MS. ;) Do you think it would be better if they didn't
use C++?
[BTW, let's not associate C++ with proprietary software! :/ ]
Best Regards,
-- Eray (exa) Ozkural Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara e-mail: erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 15 2000 - 21:00:29 EST