ldionne added a comment.
In D31413#2277630 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D31413#2277630>, @smeenai wrote:
> What was the conclusion for the comments about the priority level (100 vs.
> 101)?
My understanding is that values below `101` are literally not allowed:
<...>/llvm/libcxx/src/iostream.cpp:80:66: error: 'init_priority' attribute
requires integer constant between 101 and 65535 inclusive
_LIBCPP_HIDDEN ios_base::Init __start_std_streams
__attribute__((init_priority(100)));
^
~~~
1 error generated.
If there's a way around that, and if values below 101 are reserved for the
implementation, then I agree `100` is what we should use. @aaron.ballman where
did you read that values below 101 were reserved for the implementation? The
GCC docs at https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/C_002b_002b-Attributes.html
don't imply that -- they say the attribute starts at 101. I agree it's a fairly
logical thing to think values before that would be reserved, but it doesn't say
explicitly.
Is it possible that GCC reserves values before 101 for the implementation, but
Clang implemented the attribute "naively" and just errors out?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31413/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31413
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
