PiJoules wrote: (Sorry I think I accidentally edited your last comment rather than adding a new one)
> To ensure we don't destroy objects that weren't constructed, you can use a > guard variable of some sort, sure. I'm not quite sure what the goal is, > here; are you trying to improve performance, or are you worried about the > function pointers for security? Fewer atexit calls means fewer calls to malloc since the number of callbacks can dynamically grow. > No, I mean for objects in different translation units. I think the same > translation unit works like you think. And different translation units maybe > works for non-inline variables, assuming the loader iterates in the right > direction? > > I think you might run into issues with inline variables? Not sure if this > patch actually changes behavior for them. Good points, I'll have to write more tests for this https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115788 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
