* Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 05/25/2011 12:17 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > Also it's not clear why ((constructor)) was written in the way it
> > was: why apparently no access is given to the array of init
> > functions
>
> It is accessible---glibc uses it.
>
> > and why it's not possible to turn the auto-execution off but
> > still have the array generated, for legitimate cases that want to
> > use data driven constructor execution.
>
> The compiler doesn't care about what is done with the data. It
> simply provides the table for the runtime library to use it.
> ((constructor)) is a veneer over the same infrastructure used for
> C++ global constructors; that explains its design pretty well.
Obviously the compiler did not provide this feature into a vacuum, it
expected the C library to execute constructors, right?
So the above dodges my question of why there is no method (in glibc)
to turn auto-execution off and let the app do it.
If all that was possible then ((constructor)) could certainly be used
as a generalized shortcut for certain ((section)) uses.
> > the ((section)) approach we could create a clear runtime BUG_ON()
> > assert for a zero-sized array of init function pointers,
>
> Not really. The problem is that f1.o is not pulled from the static
> library _because the linker thinks it is not necessary_. If f1.o
> defines another symbol, and f.o uses it, then the constructor is
> pulled in together with the rest of f.o. As soon as _one_
> constructor is pulled in (even from outside the static library),
> your BUG() would not detect silently missing imports anymore.
Yeah, good point.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
