[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Libvir] __attribute__((constructor)) anyone?



Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 20:00 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 01:58:04PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Would anyone object to a patch using __attribute__((constructor)) throughout libvirt rather than all this if(!initialised) initialise() stuff?
I don't think that annotation is widely supported enough by constructors
for us to be able to use it - in particular I think it'd be a problem for
the Solaris guys using libvirt unless they switched to GCC instead of the
Sun compilers/linkers.

	A better reason[1], IMHO is that it just makes code more obtuse for
little gain - e.g. what order are they called in? And you'd have weird
stuff where the handler set by virSetErrorFunc() would not be called if
an error occurred in a constructor, requiring the library user to also
use a constructor in order to call virSetErrorFunc() ...

Actually this is an argument for using constructors, because the linker should order them in a sensible order taking into account module dependencies. Anyhow, I take the point about people using non-GCC compilers (and I'm a bit surprised too ...) Does anyone know if the Solaris compiler supports C99 idioms? The remote patch currently uses C99 idioms all over the place ...

Rich.

--
Emerging Technologies, Red Hat  http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/
64 Baker Street, London, W1U 7DF     Mobile: +44 7866 314 421
 "[Negative numbers] darken the very whole doctrines of the equations
 and make dark of the things which are in their nature excessively
 obvious and simple" (Francis Maseres FRS, mathematician, 1759)

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]