From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32163 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2010 18:26:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 31944 invoked by uid 48); 15 Jul 2010 18:26:10 -0000 Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100715182610.31943.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug libstdc++/44952] #include implies global constructor. In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-07/txt/msg01633.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #9 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-07-15 18:26 ------- Let's say we remove that horrible .h from the Summary, since, to be fair, didn't exist in g.C in the first place ;) That said, I agree with Jon, by and large, with the following minor additional observations: 1- I'm pretty sure the library is correct, but we should double check whether other established and new implementations of the C++ runtime are trying to do something special, performance-wise - low priority I'm afraid; 2- As library maintainers we certainly welcome any improvement to the optimizers improving the code GCC generates for these constructors, because certainly many user applications could benefit, not just because the library would; -3 While we are at it, I think we should make sure not regressing on libstdc++/39796, or even making progress at once. Ideas? (I didn't really manage to study it in any detail) -- paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |enhancement Summary|#include imply |#include implies |global constructor. |global constructor. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44952