kernel: add support for  .init_array.* constructors

> Hummm... I thought that you would actually support priorities. And you sort of support
> priorities, but disregard them at the same time.

 We don't need priorities.

> If my code contains constructors with priorities and the constructors are called, I probably
> want them to be called in priority order. Why did I add priorities then?

So, you are concerned, that some theoretical non-existing code, which could not possibly work
before this patch, will also not work after applying it ?

> Or this code is somehow magically guaranteed to call ctors in priority order? Then it
> deserves a comment.

No, this won't be sorted.

> The gcc change that I made makes sense anyway, because kernel instrumentation does 
> not actually need priorities.
Agreed.

> So I would consider just leaving it as is.

Ok, I'll send update with sorting by priority.