is g++-cxa-atexit.dpatch still needed
I went back and looked at the origin of this g++-cxa-atexit.dpatch
patch...
http://lists.debian.org/debian-gcc/2001/debian-gcc-200106/msg00162.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/1999-12n/msg00664.html
and decided to try the test case (it needs a correction...test.C is
missing a
#include <stdlib.h>
I found the following. I can compile it with either gcc 3.0.4 with
the g++-cxa-atexit.dpatch patch or with my own local copy of gcc 3.1
which has the g++-cxa-atexit.dpatch removed. In either case I get..
In main
In shared object
Back in main
Shared object going away...
Goodbye, world.
I also built the test programs on entropy.crashing.org using
Franz Sirl's toolchain that uses an srpm that also doesn't use
int flag_use_cxa_atexit = 1;
In that case it also passes the test case properly. It seems to me
that if the only reason we included the g++-cxa-atexit.dpatch
was to satisfy the known problem...
Global destructors are not run in the correct order.
Global destructors should be run in the reverse order of their constructors completing. In most cases this is the same as the reverse order of constructors starting, but sometimes it is different, and that is important. You need to compile and link your p
...that we don't need this patch and it is undesirable because
1) no other distro is using it and FSF has this flag off by default
in all compiler releases
2) it currently causes breakage in binutils
Jack
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack W. Howarth, Ph.D. 231 Albert Sabin Way
NMR Facility Director Cincinnati, Ohio 45267-0524
Dept. of Molecular Genetics phone: (513) 558-4420
Univ. of Cincinnati College of Medicine fax: (513) 558-8474
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: