Re: C++ in embedded systems

From: Martin Vuille (jpmv27_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 08/19/03


Date: 19 Aug 2003 09:07:56 -0400

dingoatemydonut@aol.com (Dingo) wrote in
news:1303dc66.0308141054.6ad8ba3b@posting.google.com:

> ih8sp4m@yahoo.com (Mad@Spammers) wrote in message
> news:<ea82e822.0308140428.397d9dd6@posting.google.com>...
>> I have followed some discussions about C++ deployment in embedded
>> systems and I learned there are several criticism on C++ itself and
>> its deployment in such systems.
>> <SNIP>
>> I would appreciate if you could comment on this and give hints on
>> what to avoid when programming for embedded systems in C++.
>> Suggestions of books and links will be very much appreciated as well.
>
> You should check out the Rationale for Embedded C++. It gives a good
> overview of which standard C++ features were left out and why.
>
> http://www.caravan.net/ec2plus/rationale.html
>
> I think they drew a pretty good line about which features are and
> aren't useful for embedded systems. Although I don't understand why
> they felt it was necessary to eliminate wchar_t.
>

Personally, I subscribe to the view that EC++ was concocted by
compiler vendors in order to create a market for their non-Standard-
compliant C++ compilers.

I find many aspects of the rationale downright insulting, making
direct or indirect references to embedded system developers' supposed
limited ability to comprehend C++.

The removal of templates, exceptions, and RTTI is arguably justified
on the grounds of efficiency although, as has been pointed-out elsewhere
in this thread, any half-decent C++ compiler will allow the user to
disable those anyway.

On the other hand, perhaps someone can explain why "mutable", namespaces,
and the C++-style casts were removed, if not to make the compiler-
writers' lives easier.

MV

-- 
Do not send e-mail to the above address. I do not read e-mail sent there.