On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/15/2017 10:49 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> In bug 52477 - Wrong initialization order? attribute constructor
>>> vs static data access, the reporter expects C++ objects with static
>>> storage duration to have their ctors called in the same order as
>>> those of functions declared with attribute constructor interleaved
>>> with them.
>>>
>>> In his comment on the bug Richard opines that relying on the order
>>> is undefined. The attached patch updates the manual to make this
>>> clear.
>>
>> I disagree with that comment, and have added one of my own, but I
>> think your patch is appropriate for GCC 7 since we aren't going to fix
>> it in this release.
>
> Okay, thanks. In that case I should probably word it slightly
> differently. I've added "at present" below to imply (hint) that
> this might change in the future. I'll go with this unless you
> have a different suggestion.
>
> However, <ins>at present, </ins>the order in which constructors
> for C++ objects with static storage duration and functions decorated
> with attribute @code{constructor} are invoked is unspecified. In
> mixed declarations, attribute @code{init_priority} can be used to
> impose a specific ordering.
Sounds good.
Jason
