* --enable-__cxa_atexit
@ 2003-02-10 20:43 Scott Robert Ladd
2003-02-10 20:49 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-02-10 20:56 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Gabriel Dos Reis
0 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Scott Robert Ladd @ 2003-02-10 20:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc List
Since gcc 3.1, I've built the compiler with the --enable-__cxa_atexit option
on Linux/Intel systems, as suggested by the ABI recommendations at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.2/c++-abi.html
I recently installed a Debian "sid" system, which installed a Debian package
for gcc 3.2.2. Checking the option, I discovered that the package was
compiled with --disable-__cxa_atexit.
Can anyone explain why Debian's maintainers made the above choice?
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Professional programming for science and engineering;
Interesting and unusual bits of very free code.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: --enable-__cxa_atexit
2003-02-10 20:43 --enable-__cxa_atexit Scott Robert Ladd
@ 2003-02-10 20:49 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-02-10 20:56 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Gabriel Dos Reis
1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2003-02-10 20:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Scott Robert Ladd; +Cc: gcc List
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 03:44:11PM -0500, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> Since gcc 3.1, I've built the compiler with the --enable-__cxa_atexit option
> on Linux/Intel systems, as suggested by the ABI recommendations at:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.2/c++-abi.html
>
> I recently installed a Debian "sid" system, which installed a Debian package
> for gcc 3.2.2. Checking the option, I discovered that the package was
> compiled with --disable-__cxa_atexit.
>
> Can anyone explain why Debian's maintainers made the above choice?
You picked a bad week to check. It was an error involving pattern
matching and the netbsd-i386 port.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: --enable-__cxa_atexit
2003-02-10 20:43 --enable-__cxa_atexit Scott Robert Ladd
2003-02-10 20:49 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Daniel Jacobowitz
@ 2003-02-10 20:56 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2003-02-10 21:57 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Scott Robert Ladd
1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Gabriel Dos Reis @ 2003-02-10 20:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Scott Robert Ladd; +Cc: gcc List
"Scott Robert Ladd" <scott@coyotegulch.com> writes:
| Since gcc 3.1, I've built the compiler with the --enable-__cxa_atexit option
| on Linux/Intel systems, as suggested by the ABI recommendations at:
|
| http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.2/c++-abi.html
|
| I recently installed a Debian "sid" system, which installed a Debian package
| for gcc 3.2.2. Checking the option, I discovered that the package was
| compiled with --disable-__cxa_atexit.
|
| Can anyone explain why Debian's maintainers made the above choice?
Why don't you ask that on Debian lists?
-- Gaby
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* RE: --enable-__cxa_atexit
2003-02-10 20:56 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Gabriel Dos Reis
@ 2003-02-10 21:57 ` Scott Robert Ladd
2003-02-10 22:01 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Gabriel Dos Reis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Scott Robert Ladd @ 2003-02-10 21:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc List
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | Can anyone explain why Debian's maintainers made the above choice?
>
> Why don't you ask that on Debian lists?
Because I thought, perhaps, that I misunderstood the need to
include --enable-__cxa_exit in the configuration of gcc. Had I asked in the
Debian lists, I probably would have had someone tell me to ask here... ;)
..Scott
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: --enable-__cxa_atexit
2003-02-10 21:57 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Scott Robert Ladd
@ 2003-02-10 22:01 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2003-02-10 22:16 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Scott Robert Ladd
0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Gabriel Dos Reis @ 2003-02-10 22:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Scott Robert Ladd; +Cc: gcc List
"Scott Robert Ladd" <scott@coyotegulch.com> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > | Can anyone explain why Debian's maintainers made the above choice?
| >
| > Why don't you ask that on Debian lists?
|
| Because I thought, perhaps, that I misunderstood the need to
| include --enable-__cxa_exit in the configuration of gcc. Had I asked in the
| Debian lists, I probably would have had someone tell me to ask here... ;)
Packagers best know why they include or exclude features.
-- Gaby
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* RE: --enable-__cxa_atexit
2003-02-10 22:01 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Gabriel Dos Reis
@ 2003-02-10 22:16 ` Scott Robert Ladd
2003-02-10 22:35 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Gabriel Dos Reis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Scott Robert Ladd @ 2003-02-10 22:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdr; +Cc: gcc List
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Packagers best know why they include or exclude features.
And the owners of a project probably know best which options are required
for configuration. I wanted to know if --enable-__cxa_exit was still
required for ABI conformance, or if the rules had changed. My question was
about gcc; this is the gcc list.
..Scott
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: --enable-__cxa_atexit
2003-02-10 22:16 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Scott Robert Ladd
@ 2003-02-10 22:35 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2003-02-10 22:50 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Scott Robert Ladd
2003-02-10 23:05 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Gerald Pfeifer
0 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Gabriel Dos Reis @ 2003-02-10 22:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Scott Robert Ladd; +Cc: gcc List
"Scott Robert Ladd" <scott@coyotegulch.com> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Packagers best know why they include or exclude features.
|
| And the owners of a project probably know best which options are required
| for configuration. I wanted to know if --enable-__cxa_exit was still
| required for ABI conformance, or if the rules had changed. My question was
| about gcc; this is the gcc list.
You asked why Debian maintainers didn't include a specific feature.
That is more a question about that distributor's motive than about GCC.
Certainly you're not arguing that each time some has a question about
why his/her vendor/distributor did or didn't something, he asked here...
-- Gaby
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* RE: --enable-__cxa_atexit
2003-02-10 22:35 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Gabriel Dos Reis
@ 2003-02-10 22:50 ` Scott Robert Ladd
2003-02-10 22:54 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Neil Booth
2003-02-10 23:05 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Gerald Pfeifer
1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Scott Robert Ladd @ 2003-02-10 22:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gabriel Dos Reis; +Cc: gcc List
> You asked why Debian maintainers didn't include a specific feature.
> That is more a question about that distributor's motive than about GCC.
> Certainly you're not arguing that each time some has a question about
> why his/her vendor/distributor did or didn't something, he asked here...
I've explained my question several times; ONE MORE TIME:
I wanted to know if --enable-__cxa-exit is still required for ABI
conformance.
That is a GCC question. Perhaps I phrased my original question incorrectly
for your taste -- but I've asked the "right" question several times now
(including above), and haven't received a direct answer. I can *infer* that
it is indeed still required, and as such, leave you to have the final word.
I obviously used the -pedantic switch to invoke your aggressive warning
mechanism.
..Scott
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: --enable-__cxa_atexit
2003-02-10 22:50 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Scott Robert Ladd
@ 2003-02-10 22:54 ` Neil Booth
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Neil Booth @ 2003-02-10 22:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Scott Robert Ladd; +Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis, gcc List
Scott Robert Ladd wrote:-
> I obviously used the -pedantic switch to invoke your aggressive warning
> mechanism.
Be careful it doesn't bite. It has been known...
Neil.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: --enable-__cxa_atexit
2003-02-10 22:35 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Gabriel Dos Reis
2003-02-10 22:50 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Scott Robert Ladd
@ 2003-02-10 23:05 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2003-02-10 23:11 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Neil Booth
` (2 more replies)
1 sibling, 3 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2003-02-10 23:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gabriel Dos Reis; +Cc: Scott Robert Ladd, gcc List
Gaby, Neil,
I hardly ever disagreed with you in the past, but Scott's experience
with this list (at least concerning this issue) really must be quite
frustrating by now.
The question now is ``Is --enable-__cxa_atexit still required for ABI
compliance'', and that really looks like a GCC question to me (which
I'd answer -- if I knew the answer).
Gerald
--
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: --enable-__cxa_atexit
2003-02-10 23:05 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Gerald Pfeifer
@ 2003-02-10 23:11 ` Neil Booth
2003-02-10 23:11 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Gabriel Dos Reis
2003-02-11 18:55 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Mark Mitchell
2 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Neil Booth @ 2003-02-10 23:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gerald Pfeifer; +Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis, Scott Robert Ladd, gcc List
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:-
> Gaby, Neil,
>
> I hardly ever disagreed with you in the past, but Scott's experience
> with this list (at least concerning this issue) really must be quite
> frustrating by now.
>
> The question now is ``Is --enable-__cxa_atexit still required for ABI
> compliance'', and that really looks like a GCC question to me (which
> I'd answer -- if I knew the answer).
Sorry Gerald, I have no idea. I was trying to add a bit of (British?)
(Neil-specific?) humour.
Neil.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: --enable-__cxa_atexit
2003-02-10 23:05 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Gerald Pfeifer
2003-02-10 23:11 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Neil Booth
@ 2003-02-10 23:11 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2003-02-11 18:55 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Mark Mitchell
2 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Gabriel Dos Reis @ 2003-02-10 23:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gerald Pfeifer; +Cc: gcc List
Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
| The question now is ``Is --enable-__cxa_atexit still required for ABI
| compliance'', and that really looks like a GCC question to me (which
| I'd answer -- if I knew the answer).
Yes, it is still required.
-- Gaby
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: --enable-__cxa_atexit
2003-02-10 23:05 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Gerald Pfeifer
2003-02-10 23:11 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Neil Booth
2003-02-10 23:11 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Gabriel Dos Reis
@ 2003-02-11 18:55 ` Mark Mitchell
2003-02-11 19:10 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Scott Robert Ladd
2003-02-12 10:39 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Gabriel Dos Reis
2 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Mark Mitchell @ 2003-02-11 18:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gerald Pfeifer, Gabriel Dos Reis; +Cc: Scott Robert Ladd, gcc List
--On Tuesday, February 11, 2003 12:00:52 AM +0100 Gerald Pfeifer
<pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
> The question now is ``Is --enable-__cxa_atexit still required for ABI
> compliance'', and that really looks like a GCC question to me (which
> I'd answer -- if I knew the answer).
It's not required for ABI conformance -- but it is required to get a
correct C++ compiler, if you're concerned about the exact order of static
destructors.
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* RE: --enable-__cxa_atexit
2003-02-11 18:55 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Mark Mitchell
@ 2003-02-11 19:10 ` Scott Robert Ladd
2003-02-11 19:14 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Mark Mitchell
2003-02-12 10:39 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Gabriel Dos Reis
1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Scott Robert Ladd @ 2003-02-11 19:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Mitchell, Gerald Pfeifer, Gabriel Dos Reis; +Cc: gcc List
Mark Mitchell wrote
> It's not required for ABI conformance -- but it is required to get a
> correct C++ compiler, if you're concerned about the exact order of static
> destructors.
Wonderful! I appreciate the answer.
I had, by the way, dug into the compiler source code finally to figure out
exactly what __cxa_atexit actually *did*. I'm curious as to why this is not
the default option, and why it is listed in the documentation as a
requirement for ABI conformance when it is, in fact, related to C++
correctness.
..Scott
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* RE: --enable-__cxa_atexit
2003-02-11 19:10 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Scott Robert Ladd
@ 2003-02-11 19:14 ` Mark Mitchell
2003-02-11 19:17 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Paul Jarc
0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Mark Mitchell @ 2003-02-11 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Scott Robert Ladd, Gerald Pfeifer, Gabriel Dos Reis; +Cc: gcc List
--On Tuesday, February 11, 2003 02:11:46 PM -0500 Scott Robert Ladd
<scott@coyotegulch.com> wrote:
> the default option, and why it is listed in the documentation as a
> requirement for ABI conformance when it is, in fact, related to C++
> correctness.
I'm not sure about the documentation, but I can tell you why it's not
the default. It's not the default because it uses a C runtime library
interface that was historically not available on lots of systems; until
that interface was universal we didn't want to make it the case that
binaries built with G++ would't work on a system with a slightly older
C library.
It might be that the default should be changed.
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: --enable-__cxa_atexit
2003-02-11 19:14 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Mark Mitchell
@ 2003-02-11 19:17 ` Paul Jarc
2003-02-11 19:21 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Mark Mitchell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Paul Jarc @ 2003-02-11 19:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Mitchell
Cc: Scott Robert Ladd, Gerald Pfeifer, Gabriel Dos Reis, gcc List
Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> It's not the default because it uses a C runtime library interface
> that was historically not available on lots of systems;
How about letting ./configure test for that interface, and letting
that determine the default?
paul
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: --enable-__cxa_atexit
2003-02-11 19:17 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Paul Jarc
@ 2003-02-11 19:21 ` Mark Mitchell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Mark Mitchell @ 2003-02-11 19:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Jarc; +Cc: Scott Robert Ladd, Gerald Pfeifer, Gabriel Dos Reis, gcc List
--On Tuesday, February 11, 2003 02:17:18 PM -0500 Paul Jarc
<prj@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
> Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> It's not the default because it uses a C runtime library interface
>> that was historically not available on lots of systems;
>
> How about letting ./configure test for that interface, and letting
> that determine the default?
The reason that wasn't done originally is that I could ./configure on
my machine, find the new C library, and then send you binaries that
didn't work on your machine.
I'm *completely* agnostic on this issue, so I really have nothing more
to say. The distributors and users have a lot more info; we should do
whatever is handiest for them.
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: --enable-__cxa_atexit
2003-02-11 18:55 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Mark Mitchell
2003-02-11 19:10 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Scott Robert Ladd
@ 2003-02-12 10:39 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Gabriel Dos Reis @ 2003-02-12 10:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Mitchell; +Cc: Gerald Pfeifer, Scott Robert Ladd, gcc List
Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
| --On Tuesday, February 11, 2003 12:00:52 AM +0100 Gerald Pfeifer
| <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
|
| > The question now is ``Is --enable-__cxa_atexit still required for ABI
| > compliance'', and that really looks like a GCC question to me (which
| > I'd answer -- if I knew the answer).
|
| It's not required for ABI conformance -- but it is required to get a
| correct C++ compiler, if you're concerned about the exact order of
| static destructors.
Then, the documentaion needs to be corrected.
-- Gaby
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-02-12 10:21 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-02-10 20:43 --enable-__cxa_atexit Scott Robert Ladd
2003-02-10 20:49 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-02-10 20:56 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Gabriel Dos Reis
2003-02-10 21:57 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Scott Robert Ladd
2003-02-10 22:01 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Gabriel Dos Reis
2003-02-10 22:16 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Scott Robert Ladd
2003-02-10 22:35 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Gabriel Dos Reis
2003-02-10 22:50 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Scott Robert Ladd
2003-02-10 22:54 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Neil Booth
2003-02-10 23:05 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Gerald Pfeifer
2003-02-10 23:11 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Neil Booth
2003-02-10 23:11 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Gabriel Dos Reis
2003-02-11 18:55 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Mark Mitchell
2003-02-11 19:10 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Scott Robert Ladd
2003-02-11 19:14 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Mark Mitchell
2003-02-11 19:17 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Paul Jarc
2003-02-11 19:21 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Mark Mitchell
2003-02-12 10:39 ` --enable-__cxa_atexit Gabriel Dos Reis
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).