Can someone help me understand what's going on?
I really enjoyed the sidebars. (Thanks for tolerating the color commentary).
But to get back to the question on the findings, why would Valgrind
complain a boolean value is not initialized, even though its
initialized to false in the source code
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Bart Van Assche bvanass...@acm.org wrote:
On 08/12/15 22:18, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
Its *really* pathetic the C++ language lacks a mechanism for me to say
Object 1 depends upon String 1, 2, 3, and Object 2 depends upon
Object 1 and String 1, 2, 3.
What's
Am 13.08.2015 12:48 vorm. schrieb Jeffrey Walton noloa...@gmail.com:
...
But to get back to the question on the findings, why would Valgrind
complain a boolean value is not initialized, even though its
initialized to false in the source code and backed via BSS?
It would help if you could post
On 8/12/2015 10:18 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 6:02 PM, David Chapman dcchap...@acm.org wrote:
On 8/12/2015 1:09 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
...
So even though I just told you how to guarantee that global variables in C++
are initialized before they are used, don't do it. :-)
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Bart Van Assche bvanass...@acm.org wrote:
What's wrong with the singleton pattern ?
Less, now :-)
See http://preshing.com/20130930/double-checked-locking-is-fixed-in-cpp11/
- Dan
--
On Thursday, August 13, 2015 07:29:22 AM Jeffrey Walton wrote:
Just venting here, but...
$ ls *.h *.cpp | wc -l
269
$ grep class *.h *.cpp | wc -l
1332
Of 1300+ classes and nearly 270 source files, there are 5 globals that
are sensitive to their
On 13/08/15 10:03, Dan Kegel wrote:
It would help if you could post a complete example so others could see it
in action. Have you tried hacking it down until it fits in a teacup?
+1 for that.
J
--
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Jeffrey Walton noloa...@gmail.com wrote:
Al we have managed to do since C++98 (maybe earlier) is move the
problem around because the C++ language has not given us the tools we
need to address the
On 8/13/2015 10:28 AM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Jeffrey Walton noloa...@gmail.com wrote:
Al we have managed to do since C++98 (maybe earlier) is move the
problem around because the C++ language has
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Jeffrey Walton noloa...@gmail.com wrote:
I tracked it down to a one-liner ASM statement. The CPUID
instruction's ASM block was missing volatile. I guess the optimizer
removed it, which confused the machinery. (The other values were
initialized, like the global
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Jeffrey Walton noloa...@gmail.com wrote:
Al we have managed to do since C++98 (maybe earlier) is move the
problem around because the C++ language has not given us the tools we
need to address the problem.
What part of stop doing that does C++ get in the way of?
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Jeffrey Walton noloa...@gmail.com wrote:
The C++ object that uses it is in another translation unit, and it has
a init_pritority attribute.
File-scope or static C++ objects are the spawn of the
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Jeffrey Walton noloa...@gmail.com wrote:
The C++ object that uses it is in another translation unit, and it has
a init_pritority attribute.
File-scope or static C++ objects are the spawn of the devil.
There is no reliable or portable way to control
On Wednesday 12 August 2015 15:58:36 Jeffrey Walton wrote:
The variable that is triggering the uninitialized access is a simple
flag and I believe it is initialized:
bool g_flag = false;
The C++ object that uses it is in another translation unit, and it has
a init_pritority attribute.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Jeffrey Walton noloa...@gmail.com wrote:
The GCC folks told me to use init_priority for these issues. See
Method to specify initialization order across translation units?
(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2015-08/msg00025.html).
I bet they were thinking ... and
On 8/12/2015 1:09 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Jeffrey Walton noloa...@gmail.com wrote:
The C++ object that uses it is in another translation unit, and it has
a init_pritority attribute.
File-scope or static C++ objects are the spawn of the devil.
There is no
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 6:02 PM, David Chapman dcchap...@acm.org wrote:
On 8/12/2015 1:09 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
...
So even though I just told you how to guarantee that global variables in C++
are initialized before they are used, don't do it. :-) Refactoring sounds
expensive but in the long
On 08/12/15 22:18, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
Its *really* pathetic the C++ language lacks a mechanism for me to say
Object 1 depends upon String 1, 2, 3, and Object 2 depends upon
Object 1 and String 1, 2, 3.
What's wrong with the singleton pattern ? When using the singleton
pattern non-circular
I'm catching an uninitialized access on a non-static variable that has
file scope in a C++ translation unit. I'm having trouble interpreting
the finding.
The variable that is triggering the uninitialized access is a simple
flag and I believe it is initialized:
bool g_flag = false;
The C++
19 matches
Mail list logo
