PATCH: Support priority argument for constructor/destructor arguments

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote:

> Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > One case of invalid attribute arguments that should be tested in the tests 
> > for invalid arguments and may need testing for in the code is INTEGER_CSTs 
> > of non-integer type, __attribute__((constructor((void *)0))) for example.  
> 
> By the way, it seems that enumeration constants do not work; for:
> 
>   enum E { e };
>   void f () __attribute__((constructor (e)));
> 
> The arugment list is an IDETNIFIER_NODE, not a CONST_DECL or
> INTEGER_CST.  Is this handled by any other attributes accepting numeric
> priorities?

This is a general known ambiguity with attribute syntax: the first 
argument of an attribute may be either an identifier or an expression, and 
if an identifier then it's parsed as such.  (So using (e) should work 
there as a workaround.)

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com