http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27692
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-10-11 01:10:08 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > I honestly don't understand how such a warning would look like: like warning > for any snippet of code where destructors could run in an unpredictable order? The compiler could warn about local statics that need destroying on targets without __cxa_atexit, letting the user know that they will not be run in reverse order of construction as they ought. I think these tests should be xfailed, not skipped; this is a case of C++ semantics being violated.
