[Spice-devel] [PATCH 1/2] define SPICE_CONSTRUCTOR_FUNC and SPICE_DESTRUCTOR_FUNC macros

[Frediano Ziglio]

> 
> 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 at redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  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