Bugs/non-portable assumptions in libstdc++

Paolo Carlini pcarlini@suse.de
Fri Nov 19 18:14:00 GMT 2004


Hi Chris,

>With this as background, I have two questions for the list: 1. Do you
>agree that this is really a bug/non-portable assumption?
>
Well, 3.6.2/1:

    "Objects with static storage duration (3.7.1) shall be zero 
inizialized (8.5) before
    any other inizialization takes place."

Where 3.7.1/4 says:

    "The keyword static applied to a class data member in a class definition
    gives the data member static storage duration."

Or I'm missing something/you actually mean something else?!?

>  2. Do you know
>of any other places in libstdc++ where this 'optimization' (eliding the
>initialization) is done?
>  
>
Yes, for sure _S_empty_rep_storage in basic_string, most likely others...

Thanks,
Paolo.



More information about the Libstdc++ mailing list