It's a documented part of GNU C. What makes people think they're likely to break it?
In general, the more obscure a technique is, the less I think you should rely on it. Apple is free to make changes to their version of gcc at any time, and they're more likely to change things that are rarely used.
However, when I made that comment I was under the impression that a construct was an Objective-C language construct. After reading the page Dave MacLachlan linked to in the original post I realize it's more general.
Ironically, though, the docs say this about constructors and destructors:
These attributes are not currently implemented for Objective-C
For some reason, I feel Douglas Adams would have something to say here.
by Scott Stevenson — Nov 29
In general, the more obscure a technique is, the less I think you should rely on it. Apple is free to make changes to their version of gcc at any time, and they're more likely to change things that are rarely used.
However, when I made that comment I was under the impression that a construct was an Objective-C language construct. After reading the page Dave MacLachlan linked to in the original post I realize it's more general.
Ironically, though, the docs say this about constructors and destructors:
These attributes are not currently implemented for Objective-C
For some reason, I feel Douglas Adams would have something to say here.