🚀 go-pugleaf

kanze@gabi-soft.fr (J. Kanze) writes:

>But the question concerned static objects in a module that was never
>referenced.  (What I'm thinking of here are objects whose constructor
>registers them with some sort of container, and that are only accessed
>via that container.  If they are constructed, they will be accessed.
>But is there any guarantee that they will eventually be constructed?)

I've been trying to use as many weasel-words as possible here, and so I
wish you wouldn't keep pointing out the holes I'm deliberately
leaving unplugged. :-)

If a non-local static object is defined in a module, but no reference
is made to anything in that module, I don't believe the static object
is guaranteed to be constructed. If any object or function in that
module is referenced from outside the module, I believe all non-local
static objects are supposed to be constructed.

The problem as I see it is the draft standard still makes some promises
which I don't believe are possible to keep in all cases (even
forgetting about dynamic libraries). I don't think we have the final
word on exactly what you can expect about order of initializtion
and destruction of non-local static objects in different modules. The
current situation is that you can't depend on the order of construction
or destruction.

--
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your 
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu 
]