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
