Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 20:05:57 +0000 From: Lorenzo Salvadore <developer@lorenzosalvadore.it> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: Zhenlei Huang <zlei@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: gcc behavior of init priority of .ctors and .dtors section Message-ID: <vsV7JfyoYOL7sBIY2z5Dg-2829ksASYTol-33RK76f5_L5RU9hEzogscSf1LK_RO3gtjZ6CyCyl3AMe-c9Dppdk0_kwN9rC0fSyi34YNl_0=@lorenzosalvadore.it> In-Reply-To: <ZkZP3SWpe61etZOc@kib.kiev.ua> References: <3ECF8C28-D2D9-4212-B025-3EC64E46BADC@FreeBSD.org> <ZkZP3SWpe61etZOc@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday, May 16th, 2024 at 20:26, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.= com> wrote: > > gcc13 from ports > > `# gcc ctors.c && ./a.out init 1 init 2 init 5 init 4 init 3 main fini = 3 fini 4 fini 5 fini 2 fini 1` > >=20 > > The above order is not expected. I think clang's one is correct. > >=20 > > Further hacking with readelf shows that clang produces the right order = of > > section .rela.ctors but gcc does not. > >=20 > > ``` > > # clang -fno-use-init-array -c ctors.c && readelf -r ctors.o | grep 'Re= location section with addend (.rela.ctors)' -A5 > clang.txt > > # gcc -c ctors.c && readelf -r ctors.o | grep 'Relocation section with = addend (.rela.ctors)' -A5 > gcc.txt > > # diff clang.txt gcc.txt > > 3,5c3,5 > > < 000000000000 000800000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000060 init_65535_2 += 0 > > < 000000000008 000700000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000040 init + 0 > > < 000000000010 000600000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000020 init_65535 + 0 > > --- > >=20 > > > 000000000000 000600000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000011 init_65535 + 0 > > > 000000000008 000700000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000022 init + 0 > > > 000000000010 000800000001 R_X86_64_64 0000000000000033 init_65535_2 += 0 > > > ``` > >=20 > > The above show clearly gcc produces the wrong order of section `.rela.c= tors`. > >=20 > > Is that expected behavior ? > >=20 > > I have not tried Linux version of gcc. >=20 > Note that init array vs. init function behavior is encoded by a note adde= d > by crt1.o. I suspect that the problem is that gcc port is built without > --enable-initfini-array configure option. Indeed, support for .init_array and .fini_array has been added to the GCC p= orts but is present in the *-devel ports only for now. I will soon proceed to enable it for the GCC standard ports too. lang/gcc14 is soo= n to be added to the ports tree and will have it since the beginning. If this is indeed the issue, switching to a -devel GCC port should fix it. Cheers, Lorenzo Salvadore
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?vsV7JfyoYOL7sBIY2z5Dg-2829ksASYTol-33RK76f5_L5RU9hEzogscSf1LK_RO3gtjZ6CyCyl3AMe-c9Dppdk0_kwN9rC0fSyi34YNl_0=>