On Wed, 2016-03-16 at 11:52 -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:36:53AM +0000, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> > >
> > > Allow to define functions executed at program/shared object
> > > initialization
> > > or close.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Frediano Ziglio <fziglio@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > common/macros.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/common/macros.h b/common/macros.h
> > > index 47289be..fe36929 100644
> > > --- a/common/macros.h
> > > +++ b/common/macros.h
> > > @@ -29,5 +29,27 @@
> > > #define SPICE_ATTR_PRINTF
> > > #endif /* __GNUC__ */
> > >
> > > +#ifdef __GNUC__
> > > +#define SPICE_CONSTRUCTOR_FUNC(func_name) \
> > > + static void __attribute__((constructor)) func_name(void)
> > > +#define SPICE_DESTRUCTOR_FUNC(func_name) \
> > > + static void __attribute__((destructor)) func_name(void)
> > > +#elif defined(_MSC_VER)
> > > +#define SPICE_CONSTRUCTOR_FUNC(func_name) \
> > > + static void func_name(void); \
> > > + static int func_name ## _wrapper(void) { func_name(); return
> > > 0; } \
> > > + __pragma(section(".CRT$XCU",read)) \
> > > + __declspec(allocate(".CRT$XCU")) static int (* _array ##
> > > func_name)(void) = func_name ## _wrapper; \
> > > + static void func_name(void)
> > > +#define SPICE_DESTRUCTOR_FUNC(func_name) \
> > > + static void func_name(void); \
> > > + static int func_name ## _wrapper(void) { func_name(); return
> > > 0; } \
> > > + __pragma(section(".CRT$XPU",read)) \
> > > + __declspec(allocate(".CRT$XPU")) static int (* _array ##
> > > func_name)(void) = func_name ## _wrapper; \
> > > + static void func_name(void)
> > > +#else
> > > +#error Please implement SPICE_CONSTRUCTOR_FUNC and
> > > SPICE_DESTRUCTOR_FUNC
> > > for this compiler
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > >
> > > #endif /* __MACROS_H */
> > > --
> > > 2.5.0
> > Testes, works without issues.
> >
> > I'm wondering why not to include the whole header from glib [0] and
> > maybe file a bug to ask them to export in the future.
> >
> > [0] https://git.gnome.org/browse/glib/tree/glib/gconstructor.h
> >
> > Then, in case G_HAS_CONSTRUCTORS is not defined we can include
> > different
> > arch constructors. What do you think?
> >
> > PS: while looking for an open bug:
> > aix: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=763560
> > hp-ux/ia: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=763466
> >
> > cheers,
> > toso
> >
> Do we want to support HP-UX or AIX? I did work on HP-UX and from what
> I
> can see not even HP is supporting that much this OS.
> Personally I don't like Gnome implementation, particularly the atexit
> call
> on Windows.
> I don't understand the g_slist_find call either.
>
> Frediano
What about clang ? Does it work there?
Pavel
> _______________________________________________
> Spice-devel mailing list
> Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
_______________________________________________
Spice-devel mailing list
Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel