[GiNaC-list] Re: GiNaC 1.3.1

[Jens Vollinga]

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.