This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: init_priority ... would this work?

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Kean Johnston <jkj at sco dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 15:08:32 -0700
Subject: Re: init_priority ... would this work?
References: <20030413200221.GC11590@redhat.com> <015401c301fc$27cf9dd0$03419384@shrike>

On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 01:35:00PM -0700, Kean Johnston wrote:
> So this init_priority is only there for one OS? I thought it was
> some kind of generic solution to propper contructor init order.

Well, it was supposed to be.  I don't know that it is 
particularly successful or useful.

> If I cant do that for whatever reason,
> is gcc not actually in error, emitting code that is GNU ld
> specific on any non-GNU ld targets (re: gnu.linkonce.* sections)?

No.  The gnu.linkonce.* sections work properly even without
any gnu ld specific help.  Additionally, we'd like to move
away from these and toward the new elf section group support.
See some of the discussion concerning unwind info and switch
tables wrt discarded gnu.linkonce sections.

r~

References:
- Re: init_priority ... would this work?
  - From: Richard Henderson
- RE: init_priority ... would this work?
  - From: Kean Johnston

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]