From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25005 invoked by alias); 16 May 2011 00:37:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 24997 invoked by uid 22791); 16 May 2011 00:37:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,TVD_RCVD_IP X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from 123-243-254-105.static.tpgi.com.au (HELO racky.postincrement.net) (123.243.254.105) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 May 2011 00:37:13 +0000 Received: from [10.216.24.83] ([120.153.216.141]) (authenticated bits=0) by racky.postincrement.net (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p4G0aeKi023907 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 16 May 2011 10:36:59 +1000 References: <4DCFA77B.9060300@postincrement.com> <20110516001523.GC20800@bubble.grove.modra.org> In-Reply-To: <20110516001523.GC20800@bubble.grove.modra.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8J2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "binutils@sourceware.org" From: Craig Southeren Subject: Re: PATCH: PR ld/12730: regression] crash when allocating in a static constructor Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 00:37:00 -0000 To: Alan Modra X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg00202.txt.bz2 Hi Alan, Thanks for taking the time to reply. While there is a small part of me that would like to tilt against this pa= rticular windmill, the lack of any specific point of non-compliance means t= hat I have no firm ground to stand-on.=20 In the end, it's would be about differences in interpretation of an ambig= uous text based on historical precedents - which is an almost textbook reci= pe for a religious war.=20 I have no desire to cast the first stone, so I'm going to let this sleepi= ng dog lie (and also stop mixing metaphors) :) Craig Sent from my iPhone On 16/05/2011, at 10:15 AM, Alan Modra wrote: > On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 08:14:19PM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote: >> At the heart of the issue is the timing of initialising statics at >> the global/namespace level. >=20 > You won't get much traction on this issue here on the binutils list. > We did have a ld bug that affected you but that has now been fixed. > Further discussion should go to one of the gcc lists. If you can get > agreement that functions declared with __attribute__ ((constructor)) > ought to be treated exactly as standard C++ namespace scope > constructors regarding initialisation order, then it would be good to > have your testcase added to the g++ testsuite. That should ensure > both g++ and ld do not regress. >=20 > FWIW, I think your testcase is quite reasonable. The main reason I > wanted the testcase removed from the ld testsuite because I found > the testcase failed using commonly available versions of g++, and > therefore a C++ testcase wasn't the best way to test ld behaviour. >=20 > --=20 > Alan Modra > Australia Development Lab, IBM