From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Subject: Re: Differences in finalization of controlled objects between gcc 4.6 and gcc 4.7
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 21:59:34 -0500
Date: 2012-07-19T21:59:34-05:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <juahis$gjb$1@munin.nbi.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: ju8u7t$kh9$1@speranza.aioe.org
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 883 bytes --]
"Markus Sch�pflin" <no.spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:ju8u7t$kh9$1@speranza.aioe.org...
...
> What surprises me is that the objects with address 08077F90 and 08077FA0
> are finalized twice in the second case. I'm aware that this is allowed but
> nevertheless I'm wondering why it happens here, because up to now I was
> thinking that only by explicitly calling finalize() or when tasks are
> involved that this actually happens. Should I consider this a regression
> in gcc and report it as such?
Those look like the temporary objects to me (since the array X should be
finalized last, and these aren't that). And I don't know of any reason that
temporaries should be finalized twice (or any reason that an implementer
would want to do that). I think it is a bug, and you ought to report it as
such.
Randy.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-26 1:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-19 12:23 Differences in finalization of controlled objects between gcc 4.6 and gcc 4.7 Markus Schöpflin
2012-07-19 13:45 ` Georg Bauhaus
2012-07-19 13:59 ` Markus Schöpflin
2012-07-19 14:48 ` Georg Bauhaus
2012-07-20 2:56 ` Randy Brukardt
2012-07-20 2:59 ` Randy Brukardt [this message]
2012-07-27 7:02 ` Markus Schöpflin
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox