On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:48:56AM -0800, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Tres Seaver <tsea...@palladion.com> wrote: > > Collin Winter wrote: > > > >> For reference, what are these "obscure platforms" where static > >> initializers cause problems? > > > > It's been a long while since I had to deal with it, but the "usual > > suspets" back in the day were HP-UX, AIX, and Solaris with non-GCC > > compilers, as well as Windows when different VC RT libraries got into > > the mix. > > So then the question is, will this cause any problems we care about? > Do the problems still exist, or were they eliminated in the time > between "back in the day" and now? In what circumstances do static > initializers have problems? What problems do they have? Can the > obscure platforms work around the problems by configuring with > --without-llvm? If we eliminate static initializers in LLVM, are there > any other problems?
When Collin's patch is finished everything will be lovely since if there's no C++ then there's no problem. Since I was under the impression that the JIT/LLVM can't emit machine code for the platforms where these C++ problems would likely occur nothing would be lost. So trying to change the LLVM to avoid static initialisers would not seem like a good use of someones time. > We really do need precise descriptions of the problems so we can avoid them. Sometimes these "precise descriptions" are hard to come by. :-) Regards Floris -- Debian GNU/Linux -- The Power of Freedom www.debian.org | www.gnu.org | www.kernel.org _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
