This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: static constructors/destructors and atexit

To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at cygnus dot com>
Subject: Re: static constructors/destructors and atexit
From: Noel Yap <nyap at garban dot com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 07:44:37 -0400
CC: egcs at cygnus dot com
Organization: Garban LLC
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980813215942.1013E-100000@jinks.home>, <35D42289.333E.cygnus.egcs@garban.com> <r24svfyt1k.fsf@happy.cygnus.com>

Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> But a few weeks ago I described how I can imagine a better mechanism
> to be implemented (better because it's faster and has no such limits)
> when you give up 100% standard compliance by not demanding that
> user-registered functions (using atexit) run between the destructors
> for the object constructed before and after the atexit call.

Yes, but I can easily see why the standard is the way it is.  If you're
not going to stick to the standard, you might as well just override the
existing atexit() function (when it's possible).

Noel

References:
- Re: static constructors/destructors and atexit
  - From: Kamil Iskra
- Re: static constructors/destructors and atexit
  - From: Ulrich Drepper

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]