rnk added subscribers: MaskRay, mstorsjo. rnk added a comment. + various .ctors stakeholders + @MaskRay + @mstorsjo
This change was my idea, so I want to make sure there is buy in from other folks who use -fno-init-array. This has the potential to break user programs that rely on the order of dynamic initialization *within* a TU, but there will be no change in order between TUs. This might also deserve a release note. Overall this should be a positive change. In the past users have reported QoI issues where a template with an SDM instantiated earlier in the TU gets initialized after a template instantiated later in the TU. Technically, those initializers are not ordered, so this is not a correctness issue, but it would be nicer if initializers ran in source order. We might need to add docs here about what happens when the initializer is in a comdat group, since the order guarantee in that case is very subtle. 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
