Hi Chris, I really like to have this initialization order problem solved! I read the the discussion mails between you and Richy again and had a look at your patch from Jan 8. But still, I have to ask some stupid questions: - your patch does COMPLETELY solve the problem? (just to be sure I got it right ;-)) - but it has to go in 1.4.0 (says Richy)? (from a first glance I don't see why this is necessary) Regards, Jens On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 01:21:42PM +0200, Chris Dams wrote:
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 22:49 +0200, Richard B. Kreckel wrote:
As you notice, this binary compatibilty issue makes your patch eligible for GiNaC 1.4.0 at best. If your patch solves a real problem, then we should reconsider it. But my impression was that it only solved a theoretical problem that no user of the library could possibly hit. Wrong?
Hello? Anybody home? You have code in GiNaC that suggest protection against static initialization order problems that in fact does not do anything whatsoever. It should either be fixed or removed. Does anybody care about this?
This is the second time that Richy leaves the discussion by not responding. I am getting more than a little irritated by this.
I have no idea how Richy got the idea that my path only solves a "theoretical problem". Perhaps some other developer could continue this discussion, since it appears that it is impossible to discuss with Richy.