* Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > ((constructor)) has showstopper properties:
> >
> > - We don't have access to the program arguments
> >
> > - stdio is probably not set up yet (this is undefined AFAICS)
>
> As I said, you can do this even better by doing only minimal work in
> the constructor. [...]
The costs of doing that:
- extra per init entry data structures
- extra code being run during the constructor phase
- the risk of not getting the ((constructor)) init run at all,
such as on static libraries
The only benefit is:
- ((constructor)) is a non-portable GCC extension so the only portability
win is to possibly support non-ELF targets. Which ones do we care about?
At this point it is a rather legitimate technical decision for us to say that
we do not want to bear those cost for that limited benefit, wouldn't you agree?
If someone adds non-ELF support then it can all be switched over to the bit
more bloated ((constructor)) approach rather easily - so this all is a
non-issue really.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
