[omniORB] Static build with GCC 3.4

[Vladimir Panov]

Duncan Grisby wrote:

>On Thursday 3 March, Vladimir Panov wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Actually, it is not a bug. They are fully aware of the problems this
>>optimization might introduce.
>>    
>>
>
>They might be fully aware of the problems, but I'd still say it's a
>bug. Surely it violates the C++ specification?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Duncan.
>
>  
>
Hi, Duncan.

I'm not sure. It seems to me that the constructor of a static variable 
should always be generated and executed, no matter what optimizations 
are done because this changes execution semantics; it is definitely not 
the same as dropping an unused static function).
But the GCC developers should know better (and I don't even have the 
standard).
I find it interesting (and unexplainable :-) that only the static link 
is affected. Maybe it's not a matter of changing the static 
initialization variables, but some improvement in
linkHacks.h. Again, if I find a solution, I'll send it.

Vlado