On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 11:34:02AM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Actually, if you can get away without using a
constructor that would be best. Constructors are a noticeable part of
cygwin's startup cost.
- Is there a C++ way to initialize a constant class
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 11:34:02AM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Actually, if you can get away without using a
constructor that would be best. Constructors are a noticeable part of
cygwin's startup cost.
What about this idea:
Corinna,
Until the initialization issue is settled, here is a patch covering
only the internationalization of security.cc
It should go in the next cygwin, and I always prefer when there
is a sufficiently long bake time.
Pierre
2002/12/13 Pierre Humblet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 09:51:58AM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 11:34:02AM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Actually, if you can get away without using a
constructor that would be best. Constructors are a
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Actually, if you can get away without using a
constructor that would be best. Constructors are a noticeable part of
cygwin's startup cost.
- Is there a C++ way to initialize a constant class and have it in the .text
section, as const int i = 1; would be?
- If
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 11:36:17AM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
Corinna,
here is an internationalization bug fix, and some preliminary
definitions for a future well_known_creator approach.
Pierre
2002/12/11 Pierre Humblet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* security.h: Declare
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Shouldn't the global symbols be marked as NO_COPY?
I am not sure why things are as they are.
These symbols are initialized in do_global_ctors and never change.
Are the constructors running again after a fork? If so, NO_COPY is fine.
It would seem more efficient to copy
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 03:56:17PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Shouldn't the global symbols be marked as NO_COPY?
I am not sure why things are as they are.
These symbols are initialized in do_global_ctors and never change.
Are the constructors running again after a
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 03:56:17PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Shouldn't the global symbols be marked as NO_COPY?
I am not sure why things are as they are.
These symbols are initialized in do_global_ctors and never change.
Are
On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 09:38:05PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Sat, Mar 09, 2002 at 07:28:13PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
Does RedHat have my copyright assignment after all?
We're checking. I come back to you.
I'm not clear here. I just checked my records and I've never been
Hello Corinna,
Attached are 7 diff files, implementing changes discussed
last weekend, with two differences:
1) I kept spawn.cc almost intact. I had not considered
the possibility of an outside token (from old applications).
Also RevertToSelf() is and will remain needed.
2) When a call is made
11 matches
Mail list logo