http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #29 from Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com> 2010-12-11 21:06:41 UTC --- On 12/11/2010 1:01 PM, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote: > So I take that, the ctor order is to support priotities, since the > .ctor.priority sections get merged into single and ordered in increasing > rather > than decreasing order, while init_array gets around the problem. I don't think "gets around the problem" is true. In both cases, you need to honor the order of constructor priorities. That's a GNU C extension, so not part of most standard ABIs, but it's one people use. Whether you use .ctor.* or .init_array, you have a bunch of stuff that has to run in a particular order and the linker has to make sure that happens. > Can't linker be told to translate .ctor section into init_array upon > seeing the fact that both are used? (or just do it by default) Maybe... Certainly, linker magic seems like the obvious way to solve a binary compatibility problem.
