Initializer priorities (Was: IA-64 ABI meeting results)

[Martin von Loewis]

> >Issue 82:  Priority Initialization Feedback
> 
> There is a base ABI group reluctance to specify something that is
> C++-specific.

I may be missing something, but... Why is this an issue for C++ in the
first place? I see this proposal in issue C-2 (order of constructors).
However, I feel that this issue is sufficiently answered already:

# Meeting concensus is that the desirable order is right to left on
# the link command line, i.e. last listed relocatable object is
# initialized first.

What exactly is the requirement for specifying anything more than
that? The C++ standard leaves the order explicitly
implementation-defined, so portable programs should not expect any
particular order. Also, Standard C++ does not provide a mechanism for
assigning priorities to specific objects.

To me, this looks like a vendor extension, even though it is supported
by a number of vendors (in one way or the other). What I don't see is
the general utility of this facility. Perhaps someone can explain the
requirements that lead to this extension?

Regards,
Martin