tree 522feaafaf690ef4644741eb47201d568f07c853
parent 9f72aae9e33f2a2b30de0b666c164d3ce1edb9f3
author Elliott Hughes <enh@google.com> 1611078083 -0800
committer Elliott Hughes <enh@google.com> 1611078470 -0800

Inline call_array for clearer stack traces.

No-one seems to understand that a crash in a random .so from call_array()
in the linker isn't a linker bug. They _seem_ to understand (or at least
claim to) when we explain that this is just the linker calling their ELF
constructors --- despite the fact that the caller of call_array() is
call_constructors().

One experiment we can try though is to inline call_array() to elide that
frame from the crash dumps. I do also wonder whether renaming
call_constructors() to call_elf_constructors() would help/hinder/make no
difference. For now I'm leaning toward "hinder" because I suspect most
people don't understand "ELF constructor" and C++ folks at least will
probably be influenced in a not wholly incorrect direction when they
hear "constructor" (whereas "ELF constructor" might mislead them back in
the direction of "strange linker magic, not my fault" again)...

(The reformatting is clang-format's decision, not mine.)

Test: treehugger
Change-Id: I65ab95ceb2e988fd053c48c66f51afba17ccfa61