vzakhari added a comment. In D64943#1633372 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64943#1633372>, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> In D64943#1633357 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64943#1633357>, @vzakhari wrote: > > > In D64943#1633175 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64943#1633175>, @ABataev wrote: > > > > > In D64943#1633170 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64943#1633170>, @lebedev.ri > > > wrote: > > > > > > > In D64943#1633164 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64943#1633164>, @ABataev > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > In D64943#1619958 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64943#1619958>, > > > > > @sdmitriev wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > As I understand ‘atexit’ solution would be target dependent > > > > > > (‘__cxa_atexit’ on Linux and ‘atexit’ on Windows) whereas > > > > > > @llvm.global_ctors/dtors variables offer similar and platform > > > > > > neutral functionality > > > > > > (http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#the-llvm-global-ctors-global-variable). > > > > > > Why do you think that ‘atexit’ is a better choice? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because it does not work on Windows, better to have portable > > > > > solution, if possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there a bug # ? > > > > > > > > > @vzakhari? > > > > > > I do not have bug #, but the issue was introduced with the following commit: > > commit f803b23879d9e1d9415ec1875713534dcc203df5 > > <https://reviews.llvm.org/rGf803b23879d9e1d9415ec1875713534dcc203df5> > > Author: Reid Kleckner <r...@google.com> > > Date: Fri Sep 7 23:07:55 2018 +0000 > > > > [COFF] Implement llvm.global_ctors priorities for MSVC COFF targets > > > > Summary: > > MSVC and LLD sort sections ASCII-betically, so we need to use section > > names that sort between .CRT$XCA (the start) and .CRT$XCU (the default > > priority). > > > > In the general case, use .CRT$XCT12345 as the section name, and let the > > linker sort the zero-padded digits. > > > > Users with low priorities typically want to initialize as early as > > possible, so use .CRT$XCA00199 for prioties less than 200. This number > > is arbitrary. > > > > Implements PR38552. > > > > Reviewers: majnemer, mstorsjo > > > > Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits > > > > Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51820 > > > > llvm-svn: 341727 > > > > > > > > The destructors are still in .CRT$XT for default priority (65535) now, but > > for non-default priority they will go into .CRT$XC. I will upload a fixing > > patch with a LIT test shortly. > > > > This clang-offload-wrapper commit will work properly, if we use default > > priority for the destructors. > > > 'IMHO' if there is a problem with lowering of LLVM IR constructs for some > particular targets, that problem must be resolved instead of adding > workarounds. I completely agree with you! I am testing the patch for destructors. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D64943/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D64943 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
