ychen added a comment. In D103495#2794684 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D103495#2794684>, @rnk wrote:
> 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. I see. It makes sense to define the order at IR level then since the order is there in `.init_array.N`/`.ctors` section nevertheless. 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
