[Bug c++/19662] New: [FEATURE REQUEST] Need an option preventing any atexit object destructions

[Bug c++/19662] New: [FEATURE REQUEST] Need an option preventing any atexit object destructions

[yuri at tsoft dot com]

For ex. "gcc -no-atexit ..." will avoid any post-run object destructions.

This feature is very useful: if I have very performance critical application and
all my objects are simple and do not *really* require destructions I may opt for
this. Benefit: will be less extra stuff inserted by compiler and program will
run faster with better optimizations.

And often people do not destroy objects anyways.

Yuri

-- 
           Summary: [FEATURE REQUEST] Need an option preventing any atexit
                    object destructions
           Product: gcc
           Version: 3.4.2
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: c++
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: yuri at tsoft dot com
                CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19662

[Bug c++/19662] [FEATURE REQUEST] Need an option preventing any atexit object destructions

[gdr at integrable-solutions dot net]

------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net  2005-01-28 07:17 -------
Subject: Re:  New: [FEATURE REQUEST] Need an option preventing any atexit object destructions

"yuri at tsoft dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:

| For ex. "gcc -no-atexit ..." will avoid any post-run object destructions.
| 
| This feature is very useful: if I have very performance critical application and
| all my objects are simple and do not *really* require destructions I may opt for
| this. Benefit: will be less extra stuff inserted by compiler and program will
| run faster with better optimizations.
| 
| And often people do not destroy objects anyways.

If your objects are simple and do not need destruction, just don't
define destructors.

-- Gaby


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19662

[Bug c++/19662] [FEATURE REQUEST] Need an option preventing any atexit object destructions

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-28 14:00 -------
So this is invalid, closing as such.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19662

[Bug c++/19662] [FEATURE REQUEST] Need an option preventing any atexit object destructions

[yuri at tsoft dot com]

------- Additional Comments From yuri at tsoft dot com  2005-01-28 20:54 -------
> If your objects are simple and do not need destruction, just don't
> define destructors.
> 
> -- Gaby

Disagree, it may only be determined after the optimization that destructor is
actuall empty.

Yuri

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19662

[Bug c++/19662] [FEATURE REQUEST] Need an option preventing any atexit object destructions

[gdr at integrable-solutions dot net]

------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net  2005-01-28 22:41 -------
Subject: Re:  [FEATURE REQUEST] Need an option preventing any atexit object destructions

"yuri at tsoft dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:

| > If your objects are simple and do not need destruction, just don't
| > define destructors.
| > 
| > -- Gaby
| 
| Disagree, it may only be determined after the optimization that destructor is
| actuall empty.

Groumph.

It was said that the objects are simple and do not need destructor.
So what is the point of writing them in the first place?

-- Gaby


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19662