Initializer priorities (Was: IA-64 ABI meeting results)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Initializer priorities (Was: IA-64 ABI meeting results)
- To: dehnert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Initializer priorities (Was: IA-64 ABI meeting results)
- From: Martin von Loewis <loewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:51:39 +0200
> >Issue 82: Priority Initialization Feedback
>
> There is a base ABI group reluctance to specify something that is
> C++-specific.
I may be missing something, but... Why is this an issue for C++ in the
first place? I see this proposal in issue C-2 (order of constructors).
However, I feel that this issue is sufficiently answered already:
# Meeting concensus is that the desirable order is right to left on
# the link command line, i.e. last listed relocatable object is
# initialized first.
What exactly is the requirement for specifying anything more than
that? The C++ standard leaves the order explicitly
implementation-defined, so portable programs should not expect any
particular order. Also, Standard C++ does not provide a mechanism for
assigning priorities to specific objects.
To me, this looks like a vendor extension, even though it is supported
by a number of vendors (in one way or the other). What I don't see is
the general utility of this facility. Perhaps someone can explain the
requirements that lead to this extension?
Regards,
Martin