jyknight added a comment. Won't this change cause weird effects with LTO, when you're merging multiple TUs' global_ctors arrays before emitting? Won't this end up reversing the order of the files, as well as the order of the functions within a single file? That does not seem likely to be expected, right?
> The compiler knows which scheme is in use and it is controlled by > -fuse-init-array. This isn't exactly true -- the linker (binutils ld and ld.gold) can translate ctors to init_array, so we also need to look at what they do. I can't actually find the code that does it in bfd, but in examination of its output, it looks like it does reverse the order of pointers within a ctors section when translating to init_array, in order to preserve the expected "backwards" order that ctors users "wanted". And gold does the same -- except it is buggy, because it reverses the order of the text itself, yet not the relocation entries associated with it. So depending on whether you're building a PIC binary or not, you get different behavior (sigh). Anyhow, modulo that gold bug, it looks like this is actually OK. 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
