On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 02:47:59AM +0200, _ wrote:
> You will probably kill me for this. But no such patch yet exists.
> I am kinda trying findout wheter there is interest in such experiment
> and find some help since to me alone it would take ages.
I would suggest you to experiment your idea thru
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:15 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>
>> Why do you need to change varasm.c at all? The hunks seem to be
>> completely separate of the attribute.
>
> Because static constructors have fields in the original order, not the
> reversed order. Otherwise code like this is miscompiled:
On Oct 7, 2012 1:05 AM, "_" wrote:
>
> And as optional switch it's harmless to rest of gcc.
This is not true.
Every option adds a maintenance burden. It must be tested and its
interaction with other features must be considered, making it harder
to make future changes if they overlap or interfere
Snapshot gcc-4.8-20121007 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20121007/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.8 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
