This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c++/27692] FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.other/init5.C execution test
- From: "jason at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:10:08 +0000
- Subject: [Bug c++/27692] FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.other/init5.C execution test
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-27692-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27692
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-10-11 01:10:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I honestly don't understand how such a warning would look like: like warning
> for any snippet of code where destructors could run in an unpredictable order?
The compiler could warn about local statics that need destroying on targets
without __cxa_atexit, letting the user know that they will not be run in
reverse order of construction as they ought.
I think these tests should be xfailed, not skipped; this is a case of C++
semantics being violated.