http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27692
--- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-10-11 12:06:25 UTC --- On 10-Oct-11, at 5:45 PM, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote: > 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? > I'm adding Jason in CC in case he can imagine something in this > area... > otherwise I guess I would ask you or Steve to just change those > testcases to be > skipped instead of xfailed and be done with this very old PR. In principle, I believe this could be fixed on 32-bit PA-RISC HP-UX. Initializer and finalizer routines are registered by collect2 for executables and shared objects. So, it should be possible to run all destructors in reverse order of construction even for dynamically loaded objects. It's using atexit that's the problem. 64-bit HP-UX is somewhat different. It uses .init_array/.fini_array but again this works for shared libraries, etc. Dave -- John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.net
