http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #36 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-02-02
08:46:55 UTC ---
} ctor_record;
Why? }; should be enough IMHO in C++. Or does GTY still require it?
int ctor_index = -1;
... ctor_index++
What is this for? Just use vec_safe_length (ctors) instead.
int sort_ctor_records (const void * a, const void * b)
Wrong formatting:
static int
sort_ctor_records (const void *a, const void *b)
ctor_recA etc. names are just too ugly, use ca and cb instead?
void finalize_ctors() {
Again, wrong formatting:
static void
finalize_ctors ()
{
if (ctors->length() > 1)
{
ctors->qsort (sort_ctor_records);
ctors->qsort (sort_ctor_records);
}
Just use
if (vec_safe_length (ctors) > 1)
{
ctors->qsort (sort_ctor_records);
otherwise it might crash if ctors is still NULL. Also, you don't need two
qsort calls.
vec_free is probably useless that late in the compilation process, I doubt
there is any GC collection after that point, but not wrong.
if (ctors)
finalize_ctors();
This should be if (!vec_safe_is_empty (ctors))
