On May 28, 2015 7:06:36 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >On 05/28/2015 04:42 AM, David Malcolm wrote: >> >> Am I right in thinking that this is a statically-allocated object >with a >> non-trivial constructor? i.e. that this constructor has to run >before >> "main" is entered? >> >> Do our coding guidelines allow for this? (I've been burned by this >> before, on a buggy C++ runtime that didn't manage to support these). >> I'm a little nervous about this, touching global state before >> "main" (e.g. from the point-of-view of the JIT), though I don't know >yet >> if this is just a gut reaction, or if there's a valid concern here >(I'm >> officially on holiday this week, so I haven't had a chance to dig >deeply >> into these patches yet, sorry). >That idiom is used in various places by Martin's patches. I didn't >see >a strong rhyme or reason behind why it was used over allocating >something in automatic or heap storage. > >As to supporting it, I'm not terribly concerned about other buggy C++ >runtimes. GCC bootstraps with GCC, which means we've got our C++ >runtime. The only worry becomes the low level bits that we build our >static ctor/dtor support on top of -- and I haven't seen major problems > >with that for eons.
But we've been trying to avoid this. And the jit might not be too happy about it either. >jeff
