This is the mail archive of the 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: [PATCH] fix PR sanitizer/55617

> Alexander,
>    I never claimed full init priority support however FSF gcc on darwin currently
> has no init priority support at all. Since Mike wanted to sort the destructors as
> well as the constructors and this achieves usable intra-module init priority support
> for FSF gcc darwin, I don't see why we don't take advantage of it. Especially
> considering that the constructors and destructors will now always be sorted anyway.
>         Jack
> ps We will have one advantage over clang's init priority support as we can use -flto
> to combine all of the code modules (outside of libraries) into a single one for the
> sorting of constructors/destructors. This allows the g++.dg/special/conpr-3.C execution
> test case to operate properly on darwin with -flto. Again, remember that clang currently
> at least supports init priority on a intra-module level. I am just trying to leverage
> the sorting of constructors/destructors that we added for asan to achive the same
> level of functionality in FSF gcc on darwin.

I understand and fully support your desire for intra-module ctor/dtor priority.
My comment was meant to reply to Mike (sorry for top-posting it,
again), who, as far as I understood him, wanted to see full
init_priority support on Darwin, which IIUC can't be implemented
without the proper linker support. LTO may help as a bandaid, but I
don't think this solution scales well enough yet.


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