[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 ...


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]