Re: is g++-cxa-atexit.dpatch still needed

Jack Howarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Have you tried running the orginal test case from > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/1999-12n/msg00664.html > > with gcc 3.1 built without the g++-cxa-atexit.dpatch. Yes, and it works fine for me with and without the patch. > Both HJ Lu and Jaku

Re: is g++-cxa-atexit.dpatch still needed

Jack Howarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Here is another message from Jakub on the complete unnecessity > of debian using the patch... This is not relevant. > It is not about being or not being accurate for gcc 3.1, it is about glibc > 2001-02-26 or later having: > > /* This is defined by

Re: is g++-cxa-atexit.dpatch still needed

Here is another message from Jakub on the complete unnecessity of debian using the patch... Jack --- >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jun 2 01:15:44 2002 Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 07:15:44 +0200 From: Jakub J

Re: is g++-cxa-atexit.dpatch still needed

Martin, Have you tried running the orginal test case from http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/1999-12n/msg00664.html with gcc 3.1 built without the g++-cxa-atexit.dpatch. Both HJ Lu and Jakub Jelinek have been trying to make clear that since glibc 2.2 the -fuse-cxa-atexit is unnecessary because

Re: is g++-cxa-atexit.dpatch still needed

Jack Howarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In that case it also passes the test case properly. It seems to me > that if the only reason we included the g++-cxa-atexit.dpatch > was to satisfy the known problem... > > Global destructors are not run in the correct order. > > > Global destructors sh