rnk added a comment. In D103495#2794667 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D103495#2794667>, @ychen wrote:
> Is there anything preventing us from using the existing priority field to > define the order instead of introducing the order among initializers with the > same priority? If we go with 1., there would be no way to say that "the order > does not matter" right? The priority is used mainly for inter-object initialization order. It moves the initializer into a `.init_array.N` section, for some number `N`. The programmer may be using existing numbers via `__attribute__((init_priority(N)))`, so it isn't safe for the compiler to use anything other than the default initialization priority. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D103495/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D103495 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
