On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 10:54 PM, David Levin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Mike Belshe <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Incidentally, when looking at Apple's webkit build, I noticed that their >> compiles will fail if new statics are introduced. I assume this is for >> performance reasons, but maybe it's because webkit needs to be embedded in >> other systems and statics make that difficult. >> > > fwiw, I thought it would be interesting to dig up some history on this, and > you pretty much got it: > > 1. They avoid statics because "it would require WebKit to have a static > initialization routine.... Such a routine increases the start-up time and > memory footprint of anything that links against WebKit, which includes just > about everything that ships with OS X." -- > https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2006-June.txt > 2. They leak for perf reasons and because it caused issues in one case > when the destructors were called on the main thread while another thread > was > using the objects -- https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21810 > > Dave > But webkit still allows statics at function scope, which are initialized the first time the function is called. Those also pose a problem if our goal is to be able to shutdown and then restart fresh without actually unloading chrome.dll. -Darin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
