Mark Mitchell writes:
>As a MinGW user, I would prefer not to see __cxa_atexit added to MinGW.
>I really want MinGW to provide the ability to link to MSVCRT: nothing
>more, nothing less.
Well, even Microsoft's compiler doesn't just to link MSVCRT.DLL (or it's
successors) a certain part of C runtime is implemented as static objects
in MSVCRT.LIB. MinGW has to provide equivilent functionality in their
static runtime library, or at least what GCC doesn't already provide in
it's runtime library.
> ... I think it would be better to adopt G++ to use whatever method
>Microsoft uses to handle static destructions.
I've looked into handling Microsoft's static constructors correctly when
linking MSC compiled objects with MinGW and I don't think it's an either
or situtation. MinGW can handle both it's own style of construction and
Microsoft's at the same time. I didn't look into how Microsoft handles
destructors though, because the objects in particular I was concerned
about didn't seem to use them.
>Ultimately, I would like to see G++ support the Microsoft C++ ABI --
>unless we can convince Microsoft to support the cross-platform C++ ABI. :-)
Hmm... I'm not sure which would be easier.
btw. regarding Microsoft's patents, Google turned up this link:
http://www.codesourcery.com/archives/cxx-abi-dev/msg00097.html
That message is from 1999, so I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft has
filed a bunch of new C++ ABI patents since then.
Ross Ridge
