On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 11:10:02PM -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
Jens Owen wrote:
Concern #1: Acceptance into XFree86, etc. Creating dependencies on C++ compilers could be a big issue for some of the major projects that utilize our code.
This is probably the biggest issue. I think if we agree to use a reasonable subset of C++, we should have a good chance. This is probably something we should bring up on [EMAIL PROTECTED] sooner rather than later.
I don't know, Ian... It will only start a flame where people would step in to say "how C++ is the holy grail" or "how C++ is evil"... How can it not be, if people in [EMAIL PROTECTED] have nothing else to base their opinions? A 3D driver is a complex beast - I myself can't yet picture how everything detail will fit in the final picture, most people here on DRI devel can't imagine either just by my descriptions, so how can the people of [EMAIL PROTECTED] understand the need to use C++ in a 3D driver?
On the other hand, if we manage to write something which is actually used and yields significant advantages, how can they possibly dismiss it?
And there's the problem. Do we ask permission or beg forgiveness? I would sure hate to do a whole bunch of work, improve the drivers, and have it all rejected. The people that control what gets into XFree86 are on devel, not dri-devel (AFAIK).
Also I think we should choose the C++ subset used (or in better words, the C++ programming paradigms used) on a technical basis, and that alone.
Right. Part of the "technical basis" that we have to consider is compiler and operating system support. Linux/x86 may be the main system that we consider, but it is by no means the only system. If I'm not mistaken we have seven processors families (x86, x86-64, IA-64, Alpha, SPARC, PPC32, and PPC64) that we either support now or in the near future and three operating systems (Linux, Solaris, and *BSD) that we either support now or in the near future. If I'm not mistaken, we also have to support several versions of GCC and other "native" compilers (Intel's compiler, Digital/Compaq/HP's compiler for Alpha, Sun's compiler for SPARC, IBM's compiler for PPC, and perhaps Watcom, too).
The technical decision of "will this feature make the driver better?" doesn't have to be made a-priori, but the decision of "is this feature supported WELL on all of the platforms we have to consider?" does. In general, I don't think C++ compilers are as mature as C compilers. It's a lot better than it was a few years ago, but it's still an issue. ESPECIALLY for people writing critical software...like drivers.
If you want, you can ping opinions on the [EMAIL PROTECTED], but if that turns into a flame on the C++ language I'll bail out immediately - it's pointless to argue such things and I'd rather invest that energy in coding. I'd really prefer waiting to have something to show.
I agree 100%. At the same time, that can be a good litmus test. If it instantly degrades into flames, then now is probably not the right time.
All that said, I would *REALLY* like to see this happen. I would especially like to see this happen quickly so that some of the new drivers (Savage & i740) can make use of it from the get-go. Having drivers that ONLY exist using the "new" framework would probably help our case. Esp. if we can show that the drivers took less time to develop because of the C++ framework. :)
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Etnus, makers of TotalView, The debugger for complex code. Debugging C/C++ programs can leave you feeling lost and disoriented. TotalView can help you find your way. Available on major UNIX and Linux platforms. Try it free. www.etnus.com _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
