Hi Frank,
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 06:34:27PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> [...]
>> On the other hand, there's the question why tree-mudflap.c tries to
>> create a constructor with a non-default priority on a platform with
>> SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY == 0 or at all [...]
>
> For the "at all" part, I believe the intent was to make it more likely
> that mudflap-tracked literals be tracked early enough so that other
> constructors would find them already available for checking.
I see. I'm still undecided who's responsibility it is to deal with the
!SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY case. On one hand one might argue that only the
callers can decide if a non-default priority is strictly required or
just an improvement, OTOH silently ignoring the priority and causing
constructors not to be run at all doesn't seem a winning proposition
either ;-)
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
