top button
Flag Notify
    Connect to us
      Site Registration

Site Registration

Thread-local destructor registration with C++11 on PowerPC

0 votes

how can I configure GCC to emit the calls to __cxa_thread_atexit() for destructor registration? On a Linux PowerPC target I see the registration of destructors, but not on the powerpc-rtems target. I guess I missed a configuration option or define. Has someone a hint for me?

posted Jun 26, 2013 by anonymous

Looking for an answer?  Promote on:
Facebook Share Button Twitter Share Button LinkedIn Share Button
Ok, I found it. It is connected with __cxa_exit(). There seem to be two ways  to enable it. One is the enable=__cxa_atexit configure option. The second  is default_use_cxa_atexit in gcc/config.gcc.

Similar Questions
+2 votes

GCC gives a warning for this program:

int main()
    int x;

test.cpp: In function 'int main()':
test.cpp:3:9: warning: unused variable 'x' [-Wunused-variable]

If I add an "unused" attribute with the GNU syntax:

int x __attribute__((unused));

the warning goes away.

However, if I use the C++11 syntax:

int x [[unused]];

the warning remains, and I also get:

test.cpp:3:20: warning: 'unused' attribute directive ignored [-Wattributes]

Does anyone know about gcc plans to support the attributes with C++11 syntax.

0 votes

I'm running Ubuntu 13.04 on an intel machine and I want to cross compile helloworld.c so that the resulting binary will execute on Ubuntu on a powerpc machine.

So something simple like:

gcc helloworld.c --target powerpc-linux -o helloworldppc

But the answer seems to always come back how to cross compile gcc itself...

+1 vote

I need some help in understanding why my GCC didn't consider this an issue. I have a function that was constructing a path to a daemon program based on the location of the shared object file where this code is. Something similar to this:

namespace {
 std::string ConstructPath()
 int lastSlash(0);
 std::string pathVar;
 Dl_info dl_info;


 pathVar = dl_info.dli_fname;
 lastSlash = pathVar.find_last_of('/');
 if(std::string::npos == lastSlash)
 // no slashes given ... must be that *.so
 // is in the current directory
 pathVar = "mydaemond";
 pathVar.erase(pathVar.begin() + (lastSlash + 1), pathVar.end());

 // first check if we can find the daemon
 // introducing sub-scope to ensure the file object is closed
 std::ifstream test(pathVar.c_str());
 throw std::runtime_error("cannot find mydaemond");

 // *** the below statement wasn't there originally, the
 // *** function simply exited after the forced-scope block above,
 // *** however, the function *did* have the return type
 return pathVar;

My comments above the final return statement illustrate what my question is about. Why wasn't this a problem? There was no return statement and yet, the code compiled fine. I'm using GCC 4.4.4 on CentOS 6.2. Is this just a problem with the 4.4.4 compiler that was fixed? I'm betting there's some subtlety in C++ here that I'm not yet aware of and I'd like to be schooled.

+1 vote

Are automatic variables (that are defined in functions, lambdas, blocks) in C++11 thread local? Is the following code correct:

auto f1 = [
 SomeClass1 obj1;
 double z = obj1.f2(y);
 return cos(z);

// Some function which creates several threads which call f1.

+1 vote

I wanted to ask what is the GCC C++ equivalent implementation of Windows _ MyFirst and _MyLast vector pointers?

These give direct access to the vectors first and last element, but they are not present in the GCC implementation of the vector class.