Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!ukma!ufcsv!gatech!mcnc!thorin!tyler!leech
From: leech@tyler.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Ordering of initialisation of static classes in *different* files ?
Message-ID: <782@thorin.cs.unc.edu>
Date: 20 Jan 88 22:39:00 GMT
References: <734@hslrswi.UUCP> <218@goofy.megatest.UUCP> <735@hslrswi.UUCP>
Sender: news@thorin.cs.unc.edu
Reply-To: leech@tyler.UUCP (Jonathan Leech)
Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Lines: 22
Keywords: ordering of static initialisation
Summary:

Expires:

Sender:

Followup-To:

Distribution:


In article <735@hslrswi.UUCP> robert@hslrswi.UUCP (J. Robert Ward) writes:
<regarding order of initialization of static objects>
>>A little
>>thought will convince you that it would be a non-trivial job to assure
>>proper order of construction.
>I agree that this is decidedly a "non-trivial job".

    If the ordering can be communicated to cfront, it can put keys
into the per-file constructor & destructor tables (that is, into their
symbol names). Then both the 'munch' and 'patch' approaches can sort
the global table's contents by these keys. This would be tedious to
code but not difficult.

    The hard part is then defining *what* the order of initialization
should be, since dependencies are not so easily identified as with the
IMPORT/EXPORT approach used in Modula-2 like languages. What is the
ordering you propose?

    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``After all, the best part of a holiday is perhaps not so much to be
      resting yourself as to see all the other fellows busy working.''
	- Kenneth Grahame, _The Wind in the Willows_