From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Lucas To: Ulrich Drepper Cc: egcs@cygnus.com Subject: Re: How EGCS with multi-threaded compliance? Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 14:53:00 -0000 Message-id: <3534E201.C8013B3D@checkfree.com> References: <199804140327.UAA18022@pern.cygnus.com> <35336112.59CF6444.cygnus.egcs@checkfree.com> X-SW-Source: 1998-04/msg00602.html Alexandre Oliva wrote: >Nope, because zero-initialization takes place before any dynamic >initialization. Ulrich Drepper wrote: > > No, the bss section is initialized to zeroes even before the > application (or the DL, resp) gets control. You must have very little > confidence in the competence of the people developing Unix systems. > First off, I prefer Unix over any other OS. Secondly, my comments earlier where in general, compilers do not implement the same nor guarentee order of initialization. Thirdly, where in the C++ specs do you read that zero-initialization takes place on anything other than simple types? I have not tested egcs to know how it works. But you are all correct in saying that a real compiler does not have this issues in static space. But, I have ran into some commercial vendors that deny this behavior and had to get them to support proper initialization of static space. The problem of initialization can get worse when you introduce shared libraries that have static initialization requirements. It was a warning and am glad you all have not had the same experience with this as I have. Maybe if I get a chance, I will send our a snippet of code that can help explain this better. Thanks, Dave -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Lucas | mailto:dlucas@checkfree.com Staff Software Engineer | Systems Software Development | My opinions are IMHO. OFX Server Devl 08-126 | | CheckFree Corporation | Work# 614.825.3511 8275 High Street | Fax# 614.825.3104 Columbus, OH 43235 | http://www.checkfree.com -----------------------------------------------------------------