d
/
bond
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

Update 'README.md'

This commit is contained in:
quackerd 2019-11-28 18:13:04 +00:00
parent acc6ba7601
commit 747e6b9825
1 changed files with 18 additions and 19 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

37
README.md
View File

@ -1,41 +1,40 @@
# Building # Building
### Required packages ### Required packages
For compiling kernel only (make compile): nasm, clang, lld, xorriso, grub-pc-bin
nasm, clang, lld, llvm
To make bootable ISO (make all):
xorriso; grub-pc-bin for bios; grub-efi-amd64-bin, mtools for UEFI.
### Compiling ### Compiling
CMAKE coming... mkdir build
cd build
cmake ../
make
# Running # Running
Load the iso with your favorite simulator or use "-kernel" option with QEMU. Load the iso with QEMU/your favorite simulator.
For UEFI simulation, use qemu_bios.bin in the root dir with QEMU.
# C++ # C++
I would like my kernel code to be explicit so that I can reason about performance, memory allocation/deallocation. That mostly means when I look at a statement I know exactly what it does. I would like my kernel code to be explicit so that I can reason about performance, memory allocation/deallocation. That mostly means when I look at a statement I know exactly what it does.
The philosophy overlaps with Go's design quite a lot: https://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2012/06/less-is-exponentially-more.html. The philosophy overlaps with Go's design quite a lot: https://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2012/06/less-is-exponentially-more.html.
Using fully-featured C++ is overly complicated for kernels and I'm dubious of OOP in general. With "modern" C++ sometimes I find myself struggling more with the language itself than getting work done. Although the kernel is compiled with a C++ compiler, the base is very much C and we only add few nice things we can benefit from C++: Using fully-featured C++ is overly complicated for kernels and I'm dubious of OOP in general. Especially while enforcing "modern" C++, sometimes I find myself struggling more with the language itself than getting work done. **I have had lengthy thoughts myself regarding C++ but decided to drop it**. Here are some of the pros and cons I came up with.
## Stronger types ## Good features
### Stronger types
C++ is stronger typed than C. Simply compiling the kernel itself with a C++ compiler provides more type safety than C. C++ is stronger typed than C. Simply compiling the kernel itself with a C++ compiler provides more type safety than C.
## C++ style casts (no dynamic_cast) ### C++ style casts (no dynamic_cast)
They are compile time casts so no runtime overhead. They provide a bit better type safety than C style casts. The only two casts we would need are probably const_cast and reinterpret_cast. They are compile time casts so no runtime overhead. They provide a bit better type safety than C style casts. The only two casts we would need are probably const_cast and reinterpret_cast.
## template ### template
For type safety for data structures. Linux's list.h isn't type safe. FreeBSD's queue.h tries to mimic templates with macros, which is less elegant than just using template. For type safety for data structures. Linux's list.h isn't type safe. FreeBSD's queue.h tries to mimic templates with macros, which is less elegant than just using template.
## namespace ### namespace
Oh boy how I wish C standard would include namespace, if it weren't for backward compaibility and stable ABI. Oh boy how I wish C standard would include namespace, if it weren't for backward compaibility and stable ABI.
## Banned features worth mentioning ### Ownership management
But rust did better?
## Banned features (tentative)
This list explains SOME of the banned features that might seem useful. This list explains SOME of the banned features that might seem useful.
### Class and ctors/dtors ### Class and ctors/dtors
@ -59,4 +58,4 @@ Think about what "f();" could mean in C++ and the code executed by "a + b;". Nee
I don't like mixing references with pointers. I don't find reference offering much more than raw pointers. I don't like mixing references with pointers. I don't find reference offering much more than raw pointers.
### RTTI and Exceptions ### RTTI and Exceptions
Totally useless for kernels. Totally useless for bond.