Re: Global destructor order problems

2013-08-27 Thread Michael Gmelin
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 17:04:28 +0300 Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 03:41:48PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > > On 2013-06-27 01:56, Michael Gmelin wrote: > > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:28:33 +0300 > > > Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > > > >> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:17:41PM

Re: Global destructor order problems

2013-07-07 Thread Michael Gmelin
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 17:04:28 +0300 Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 03:41:48PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > > On 2013-06-27 01:56, Michael Gmelin wrote: > > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:28:33 +0300 > > > Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > > > >> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:17:41PM

Re: Global destructor order problems

2013-06-27 Thread Michael Gmelin
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 17:04:28 +0300 Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 03:41:48PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > > On 2013-06-27 01:56, Michael Gmelin wrote: > > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:28:33 +0300 > > > Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > > > >> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:17:41PM

Re: Global destructor order problems

2013-06-27 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 03:41:48PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On 2013-06-27 01:56, Michael Gmelin wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:28:33 +0300 > > Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:17:41PM +0200, Michael Gmelin wrote: > >>> Are you both on the same architecture? >

Re: Global destructor order problems

2013-06-27 Thread Dimitry Andric
On 2013-06-27 01:56, Michael Gmelin wrote: On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:28:33 +0300 Konstantin Belousov wrote: On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:17:41PM +0200, Michael Gmelin wrote: Are you both on the same architecture? I tested both on amd64 and i386. For i386, it was -m32 for clang, and native 32bit

Re: Global destructor order problems (was: Re: Are ports supposed to build and run on 10-CURRENT?)

2013-06-26 Thread Michael Gmelin
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:28:33 +0300 Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:17:41PM +0200, Michael Gmelin wrote: > > Are you both on the same architecture? > > I tested both on amd64 and i386. For i386, it was -m32 for clang, and > native 32bit gcc 4.8.1, stock build from the tarb

Re: Global destructor order problems (was: Re: Are ports supposed to build and run on 10-CURRENT?)

2013-06-26 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:17:41PM +0200, Michael Gmelin wrote: > Are you both on the same architecture? I tested both on amd64 and i386. For i386, it was -m32 for clang, and native 32bit gcc 4.8.1, stock build from the tarball. pgpx_vSDnRqU4.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Global destructor order problems (was: Re: Are ports supposed to build and run on 10-CURRENT?)

2013-06-26 Thread Michael Gmelin
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:11:34 +0200 Dimitry Andric wrote: > On Jun 26, 2013, at 23:05, Konstantin Belousov > wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:59:24PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > >> On Jun 26, 2013, at 22:45, Konstantin Belousov > >> wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:26:09PM +0200,

Re: Global destructor order problems (was: Re: Are ports supposed to build and run on 10-CURRENT?)

2013-06-26 Thread Dimitry Andric
On Jun 26, 2013, at 23:05, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:59:24PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: >> On Jun 26, 2013, at 22:45, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:26:09PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: This revision is not in 9.1-RELEASE, but it is

Re: Global destructor order problems (was: Re: Are ports supposed to build and run on 10-CURRENT?)

2013-06-26 Thread Michael Gmelin
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:05:34 +0300 Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:59:24PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > > On Jun 26, 2013, at 22:45, Konstantin Belousov > > wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:26:09PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > > >> This revision is not in 9.1-R

Re: Global destructor order problems (was: Re: Are ports supposed to build and run on 10-CURRENT?)

2013-06-26 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:59:24PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On Jun 26, 2013, at 22:45, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:26:09PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > >> This revision is not in 9.1-RELEASE, but it is in 9-STABLE, so the > >> problem can also be reproduced th

Re: Global destructor order problems (was: Re: Are ports supposed to build and run on 10-CURRENT?)

2013-06-26 Thread Dimitry Andric
On Jun 26, 2013, at 22:45, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:26:09PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: >> This revision is not in 9.1-RELEASE, but it is in 9-STABLE, so the >> problem can also be reproduced there. > ... >> This is roughly gcc 4.3.0 and later. For example, gcc 4.8

Re: Global destructor order problems (was: Re: Are ports supposed to build and run on 10-CURRENT?)

2013-06-26 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:51:37PM +0200, Michael Gmelin wrote: > Could you replicate the problem using clang on stable/9 and HEAD? (I > didn't test gcc > 4.2.1 myself). On stable no, it is not reproducable. As I understand, stable clang is 3.2-something. On HEAD with clang, I do see the indentat

Re: Global destructor order problems (was: Re: Are ports supposed to build and run on 10-CURRENT?)

2013-06-26 Thread Michael Gmelin
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:45:21 +0300 Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:26:09PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > > This revision is not in 9.1-RELEASE, but it is in 9-STABLE, so the > > problem can also be reproduced there. > ... > > This is roughly gcc 4.3.0 and later. For exam

Re: Global destructor order problems (was: Re: Are ports supposed to build and run on 10-CURRENT?)

2013-06-26 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:26:09PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > This revision is not in 9.1-RELEASE, but it is in 9-STABLE, so the > problem can also be reproduced there. ... > This is roughly gcc 4.3.0 and later. For example, gcc 4.8 generates: I just tested the thing with gcc 4.8 on up to date

Re: Global destructor order problems (was: Re: Are ports supposed to build and run on 10-CURRENT?)

2013-06-26 Thread Michael Gmelin
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 21:26:09 +0200 Dimitry Andric wrote: > On Jun 26, 2013, at 13:31, Michael Gmelin wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:00:40 +0200 > > Dimitry Andric wrote: > >> On 2013-06-26 01:55, Michael Gmelin wrote: > >> ... > >>> The problem is that static initialization happens in the ex

Global destructor order problems (was: Re: Are ports supposed to build and run on 10-CURRENT?)

2013-06-26 Thread Dimitry Andric
On Jun 26, 2013, at 13:31, Michael Gmelin wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:00:40 +0200 > Dimitry Andric wrote: >> On 2013-06-26 01:55, Michael Gmelin wrote: >> ... >>> The problem is that static initialization happens in the expected >>> order (same translation unit), but termination does *not* ha