I'd love to use this flag in non-firmware code FWIW. On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Ian Tessier via Phabricator via cfe-commits <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> itessier added a comment. > > > That seems like a nice win and I like the convenience of this approach. > That said I've just remembered that there's a thread on cfe-dev about this: > > [RFC] Suppress C++ static destructor registration > > I don't think a consensus was reached. From what I gather, some people > think that the convenience of this flag makes it worth adding to clang, > while others think that adding a non-standard compiler-specific flag is > asking for trouble. > > Given that firmware is a much different (or controlled) environment than a > binary running on a full blown OS, would it be acceptable to name the flag > -fbaremetal-destroy-globals, and only allow its use if the target triple's > OS is set to none (e.g.: arm-**none**-eabi)? > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D35338 > > > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
