Keith Owens wrote:
[...]
> Interesting concept, linking a module with libg++. Would that be a
> dynamic or static link?
>
> If it is dynamic then you can absolutely forget about loading the
> module into the kernel, there is no way that modutils will ever support
> that. If it is a static link
Keith Owens wrote:
[...]
Interesting concept, linking a module with libg++. Would that be a
dynamic or static link?
If it is dynamic then you can absolutely forget about loading the
module into the kernel, there is no way that modutils will ever support
that. If it is a static link then
** Reply to message from Keith Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 17 Oct 2000
00:43:58 +1100
> Interesting concept, linking a module with libg++. Would that be a
> dynamic or static link?
>
> If it is dynamic then you can absolutely forget about loading the
> module into the kernel, there is
Mark Salisbury wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > > On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Generic Kernel Geek wrote:
> > >
> > > C++ sucks for kernel dev, because I say it does.
>
> the original-original post was somebody asking why not make
didn't say I wanted to do it, just that it could be done.
my point was that a god-awful 365 message flamewar was unnecessary, and
removing C++ keywords from system headers is not that big a deal.
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Keith Owens wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 08:50:24 -0400,
> Mark Salisbury
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 08:50:24 -0400,
Mark Salisbury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>the original-original post was somebody asking why not make the kernel headers
>C++ friendly.
>all he wanted was the c++ reserved words removed from / kept out of the headers.
>that way, if they for some reason want
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Generic Kernel Geek wrote:
> >
> > C++ sucks for kernel dev, because I say it does.
the original-original post was somebody asking why not make the kernel headers
C++ friendly.
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 08:50:24 -0400,
Mark Salisbury [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the original-original post was somebody asking why not make the kernel headers
C++ friendly.
all he wanted was the c++ reserved words removed from / kept out of the headers.
that way, if they for some reason want to
** Reply to message from Keith Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 17 Oct 2000
00:43:58 +1100
Interesting concept, linking a module with libg++. Would that be a
dynamic or static link?
If it is dynamic then you can absolutely forget about loading the
module into the kernel, there is no way
9 matches
Mail list logo
