public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "adivilceanu at yahoo dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/54791] AIX-only: Constructors are not called in main program. Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 21:14:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-54791-4-XQ2hDtALkU@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-54791-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791 --- Comment #12 from Adi <adivilceanu at yahoo dot com> 2012-11-05 21:14:22 UTC --- (In reply to comment #11) > I believe that the G++ front end tries to create a unique name from the first > symbol it sees. I do not now if this is related to the constructor name > collision that you are seeing. What do you mean that it is not related? From my point of view it is. > > Is it valid C++ to define an object with the same name in multiple files? I > cannot tell if you were doing something that happened to work but the behavior > is not clearly defined by the language, or if this is allowed and does not work > on AIX, in which case it is a bug. I agree with you here. This is why I am not insisting that this is a bug. I mean you can expect bad results if you define this. BTW on Linux GNU ld does not let me to define 2 globals with same name. I get a multiple definition error. it seems that the AIX ld is more friendly :(. > > Why does inlining or not inlining affect the name collision? Because if you have a function declared as inline in a header file that gets propagated to multiple source files is ok, but in my case that inline keyword was removed by some $ifdef LINUX and so I end up with having the constructor body defined in the header like this: ClassA::ClassA(){//body}. Now because this is in the header it will propagate to all sources that includes it. So finally I end up with that constructor in multiple constructors sources. This would not happen if the inline keyword have not been removed from it. This was a bug in our code and I removed it. > > Do SVR4/ELF systems mangle each of the constructors uniquely? I thought that > they all would end up in the ".init" sections, which will be concatenated. I am > curious how the calls to the different ctors are disambiguated at link time. I admit I am not very good at compilers(I am a beginner in understanding how compilers are working on various platforms ) so on this question I am going to make assumptions. I am going to test on Linux and see what happens there. > > collect2 could warn, but it currently does not scan the constructor names it > finds for duplicates in its object file scan. A warning would be nice, but I > do not know if it is valid C++ that it should expect. > > I am not sure what you mean by order of initialization of global constructors > across compilation units. This is within one library? GCC has a way to > decorate constructors with a priority to order the constructors. If you mean > order of constructors among multiple shared libraries, that is a separate, > known issue on AIX. Our project has one exe and several shared and static libs. To make the things easier I moved every source file in the exe. Now the problem I have is with the order of the initialization of global objects that reside in multiple object files. I need objects in a source file by constructed first before any other objects in the rest of the files are constructed. You said that I can decorate the constructors with a priority. How to do that ? Before migrating from xlC we used #pragma priority. This is ignored by gcc. We also used -qpriority flag of xlC. Also gcc does not have something like this. Or? Also I tried moving the objects I need constructed in the source files where main() is defined. Still seems that these objects are not constructed first. Also I put the object file where these objects are defined as the first one wen passing to the linker. Still no luck.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-11-05 21:14 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2012-10-03 9:20 [Bug c++/54791] New: " adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-10-03 9:40 ` [Bug target/54791] " paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-10-03 13:47 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-02 14:49 ` adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-02 14:52 ` adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-03 6:21 ` adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-03 6:24 ` adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-03 13:49 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-03 19:15 ` adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-03 22:48 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05 14:34 ` adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-05 18:55 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05 21:14 ` adivilceanu at yahoo dot com [this message] 2012-11-06 14:46 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06 16:23 ` adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-06 21:50 ` adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-07 1:27 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-07 14:46 ` adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-07 15:25 ` adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-07 22:15 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-13 8:21 ` adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-13 8:30 ` adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-13 14:03 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-13 14:09 ` adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-14 14:20 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-27 15:54 ` adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-27 18:55 ` adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-27 19:01 ` adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-27 20:42 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28 14:01 ` adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-28 19:35 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29 9:35 ` adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-29 9:44 ` adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-12-01 21:42 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-03-18 12:42 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-03-18 12:49 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-54791-4-XQ2hDtALkU@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).