C++ in the Linux Kernel
threatstack.com
C++ in the Linux Kernel
1–10 of 102 posts
Re: C++ in the Linux Kernel
#2There should be Ada in Linux kernel
Re: C++ in the Linux Kernel
#3There should be Ada in Linux kernel
and Haskell
Re: C++ in the Linux Kernel
#4I guess Rust is far better choise for that.
Re: C++ in the Linux Kernel
#5Lol, part of me likes the effort taken just because, but the kernel devs _really_ do not want C++. One hint: "struct class"
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux...
Re: C++ in the Linux Kernel
#6> You see the problem. My C++ code expected the calling convention that pushed arguments on the stack,
that would be very weird on Linux. The x86_64 linux ABI mandates that the first arguments go on registers afaik (I'm assuming x86_64 here since the post mentions linux distros which are overwhelmingly x64). What compiler would default to a pure stack-based calling convention ? Certainly not GCC or clang, no ?
> and the kernel expected my code to pass arguments in the registers.
so, how is that a problem with C++ and not the compiler defaults ?
> I found the real gold mine of C++ kernel module development knowledge in OSDev.org. They have an entire article on C++ issues. That includes avoiding templates
bullshit it is then. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_saS93Clgk
if templates are good (sometimes better even) on AVR microcontrollers with memory in kilobytes, there's no reason to not use them in a kernel meant to run on large embedded.
Also what's that rant about strings for ? In the end there is zero substance to this article, only very strange rants.
Re: C++ in the Linux Kernel
#7> You see the problem. My C++ code expected the calling convention that pushed arguments on the stack, that would be very weird on Linux. The x86_64 linux ABI mandates that the first arguments go on registers afaik (I'm assuming x86_64 here since the post mentions linux distros which are overwhelmingly x64). What compiler would default to a pure stack-based calling convention ? Certainly not GCC or clang, no ? > and…
> that would be very weird on Linux. The x86_64 linux ABI mandates that the first arguments go on registers afaik (I'm assuming x86_64 here since the post mentions linux distros which are overwhelmingly x64). What compiler would default to a pure stack-based calling convention ? Certainly not GCC or clang, no ?
The System V i386 ABI passes parameters through the stack. Perhaps that is what the author is referring to, although I wouldn't be surprised if he mixed it up with the x64 ABI.
Re: C++ in the Linux Kernel
#8> You see the problem. My C++ code expected the calling convention that pushed arguments on the stack, that would be very weird on Linux. The x86_64 linux ABI mandates that the first arguments go on registers afaik (I'm assuming x86_64 here since the post mentions linux distros which are overwhelmingly x64). What compiler would default to a pure stack-based calling convention ? Certainly not GCC or clang, no ? > and…
Perhaps the article is old enough to have been written in the 32-bit era?
Re: C++ in the Linux Kernel
#9> You see the problem. My C++ code expected the calling convention that pushed arguments on the stack, that would be very weird on Linux. The x86_64 linux ABI mandates that the first arguments go on registers afaik (I'm assuming x86_64 here since the post mentions linux distros which are overwhelmingly x64). What compiler would default to a pure stack-based calling convention ? Certainly not GCC or clang, no ? > and…
> that would be very weird on Linux. The x86_64 linux ABI mandates that the first arguments go on registers afaik (I'm assuming x86_64 here since the post mentions linux distros which are overwhelmingly x64). What compiler would default to a pure stack-based calling convention ? Certainly not GCC or clang, no ? The System V i386 ABI passes parameters through the stack. Perhaps that is what the author is referring to,…
The 32-bit Linux kernel uses a register-based ABI internally, rather than System V.
Re: C++ in the Linux Kernel
#10> A first-year computer science student can tell you that the arguments get pushed onto the stack. In other words, a call to this 3GL function results in the following assembly pseudo code
Are people this ignorant when it comes to C/C++ or any systems language? ABI & calling conventions were introduced early in my C & C++ textbooks (age 13 btw, not even close to college years).