Mail Archives: cygwin/2005/05/11/07:01:19
On 5/10/05, Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin DOT com> wrote:
> Previous to 1.5.16, static destructors were always called via a
> gcc "atexit" mechanism. This meant that there were scenarios where
> destructors would not be called at all so I made cygwin's exit call
> the destructors explicitly. I just forgot to make cygwin do the right
> thing when returning from main rather than exiting. This will be
> fixed in the next snapshot.
There's one more glitch in this. The order of destruction of static
objects should be the inverse of their order of construction,
regardless of whether they are global or local. In 1.5.16 and the
latest snapshot, global static objects are destroyed before local
static objects, regardless of the order of construction. Here's a
demo program:
#include <stdio.h>
struct A {
int i;
A(int p) : i(p) { printf("A::A(%d)\n", i); }
~A() { printf("A::~A for %d\n", i); }
};
A a(1);
void f() {
static A a(3);
}
main () {
static A a(2);
printf("main\n");
f();
}
In the new Cygwin versions, the output is:
A::A(1)
A::A(2)
main
A::A(3)
A::~A for 1
A::~A for 3
A::~A for 2
The destructors should print 3, 2, 1 instead of 1, 3, 2.
--
William M. (Mike) Miller
william DOT m DOT miller AT gmail DOT com
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -