[Bug c++/27692] FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.other/init5.C execution test

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

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.