Path: utzoo!telly!attcan!ncrcan!scocan!tom
From: tom@sco.COM (Tom Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Ordering constraints on static constructors/destructors
Message-ID: <1990Aug22.160805.8519@sco.COM>
Date: 22 Aug 90 20:08:05 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc. (formerly HCR Corporation)
Lines: 46


In section 12.6.1 of the ARM, it says:

	Constuctors for non-local static objects are called in the
	order they occur in a file; destructors are called in
	reverse order.  See also 3.4, 6.7, 9.4.

In section 3.4, it says:

	The initialization of non-local static objects (3.5) in
	a file is done before the first use of any function
	or object defined in that file. ... No further order
	is imposed on the initialization of objects from different
	files.

These rules impose a partial order on the intialization of non-local
static objects.  Typically, the implementation chooses a total
ordering that is compatible with the partial order.

Later in section 3.5 it says:

	Destructors (12.4) for initialized static objects are called
	when returning from main() and when calling exit().
	Destruction is done in reverse order of initialization.

Does the last sentence mean that the destructor order is constrained
to be the reverse of the total order actually executed for this run
of the program, or just that it must be compatible with the reversed
partial order?

For example, if I have in file1:

foo A;
foo B;

and in file2

foo C;

then construct A, construct B, construct C is a valid ordering for
initialization.  Is destruct B, destruct A, destruct C a valid
ordering for termination?

Tom Kelly  (416) 922-1937
SCO Canada, Inc. (formerly HCR) 130 Bloor St. W., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
{utzoo, utcsri, uunet}!scocan!tom