From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 2B16A3851C01; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 20:52:42 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2B16A3851C01
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1588107162;
 bh=wdD2puRSigA5BM0Rok7BGY/RYMWJrtFUVGJDkPMbx9M=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=SgsbEoq6Zlu2Xk2bgwiXhxw9544QeSXNbxg87FTG7WnJaBUxZd3PfoFd4c6wyLsU4
 5+P3ouX0dLF14kJSN9dH4wR/raC7jY1Pie+dg0vyi5y/RoXGcqEPoY4s8pEr63xjzr
 DU4W4TzGGm0HcgrUI08E+7NQ6mBLq4GPsW/WtqJQ=
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/94810] std::cout segmentation fault in
 __attribute__((constructor)) function
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 20:52:42 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 9.3.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status resolution
Message-ID: <bug-94810-4-d0fMTFxJk7@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-94810-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-94810-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 20:52:42 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94810

Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |INVALID

--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
No. The ambiguity only happens if you use the attribute explicitly, as you =
are
doing.

Just create a global object with a constructor and a destructor, instead of
using functions with __attribute__((constructor)) and
__attribute__((destructor)).

#include <iostream>

struct X {
  X() {
    std::cout << "Starting" << std::endl;
  }
  ~X() {
    std::cout << "Finishing" << std::endl;
  }
};

int main() {
    std::cout << "Hello, World!" << std::endl;
}

I'm closing this as invalid, since the attribute is documented to have
unspecified construction order relative to normal globals, which means your
original example is not expected to work.=