http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #53 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2010-12-13 20:47:44 UTC --- (In reply to comment #52) > (In reply to comment #51) > > > If gcc switches from .ctors to .init_array, it needs to make sure to > > > generate > > > the constructors in forward order within the TU, rather than backwards > > > order as > > > it does in the .ctors section. I didn't see anything in HJ's patch that > > > does > > > that. > > > > It uses priority, instead of MAX_INIT_PRIORITY - priority, to generate > > NNNN for .init_arry.NNNN. > > No, I was talking about order of constructors within a TU without using > priority. If you have static constructors for A then B in your source file, > gcc > will output B's constructor before A's in the .ctors section, so that A's will > run first. Where does your patch reverse that to account for the fact that > .init_array sections are processed in forward order? Yes, since 1. ld sorts .init_array sections in forward order. 2. ld.so processes .init_array section in forward order.
