[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Re: l4-ka, c++!

From: swin
Subject: Re: Re: l4-ka, c++!
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 07:47:20 +0800

   But do you think with the using of C++, it can make
the object file or executable file bigger while comparing 
with c. Is l4-ka so?

======= 2003-11-08 10:40:34 您在来信中写道:=======

>s>     I have heard that hurd will discontinue current
>s> hurd-l4, and switch to l4-ka,but l4-ka is written in
>s> c++, maybe, for developing and researching ,it's 
>s> convenient, but for a practical OS, do you think it 
>s> will degrade efficiency? 
>s>     Any idea?
>First off, baseing an OS on a c++ micro kernel, does not mean that
>you have to write the (full) OS in c++ as well.
>Then, what do you mean by efficiency:
>1) Code maintance is more efficient with OO (they say).
>2) Object code execution efficency for OO (in contrast to plain C -
>   WYCIWYG) depends on the compiler. If you manage to compile your OS
>   on the intel compiler for instance, I think you will get pretty good
>   efficiency on a p4 e.g. (gcc has improved as well, afaik)
>3) Driver support and porting efforts will suffer, however, as you
>   will have to touch every and any driver (be it from Linux, *BSD or
>   wheresoever) and punch it into an object API. Still, once you have
>   done the task, you can maintain your drivers and hardware res. more
>   cleanly (a well designed API provided).
>And last of all, l4 == l4-ka (or am I just missing some information
>Best regards,
> Max                            mailto:address@hidden

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]