This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: static constructors/destructors and atexit
- To: Alexandre Oliva <oliva at dcc dot unicamp dot br>
- Subject: Re: static constructors/destructors and atexit
- From: Steven Parkes <parkes at sierravista dot com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 08:06:27 -0700
- Cc: egcs at cygnus dot com
- Organization: Sierra Vista Research, Inc.
This was
discussed in the thread `p2736.C Is dtor order guaranteed?' in this
mailing list
Thanks for the pointer. It looks like this ended with Mike Stump's
comment
for C++, we would need to extend any atexit with just 64 entries.
This is like support for identifiers with only 31 characters in them.
so the idea is use gcc's atexit on systems that implement limited atexits?
I'm not sure how easy that is going to be; I'm afraid some places it's
going to be quite hard. Not that I have a better idea.
In our case, not interleaving atexit is going to be less painful than
trying to get a correct implementation. On systems where atexit is
limited, the current behavior is to just not call the destructors; that's
fatal for us.