| 1 |
On Sat, 31 May 2008 01:54:45 +0200 |
| 2 |
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > ISO/IEC 14882:1998 section 3.7.1 paragraph 2. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> "If an object of static storage duration has initialization or a |
| 6 |
> destructor with side effects, it shall not be eliminated even if |
| 7 |
> it appears to be unused, except that a class object or its copy |
| 8 |
> may be eliminated as specified in 12.8." |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Unchanged in the 2003 revision. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Is that related to linking? I don't think so. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Linking with as-needed is the stage in which the elimination occurs, |
| 15 |
and as-needed is the cause of the elimination. So yes, it is related. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> Still, PE and ELF are older than the first C++ spec so, IFF your |
| 18 |
> reading of this chapter is correct, C++ is broken by design. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Not at all. Read "The Design and Evolution of C++", and you shall see |
| 21 |
that requiring changes to the linker where necessary for sensible |
| 22 |
behaviour was considered acceptable, and with good reason. |
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives