On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 08:32:35PM +0000, Andy Koppe wrote: >Christopher Faylor: >> Andrew West: >>>O.k. I'll check out the changes on Monday, but one minor point. >>>Shouldn't the atexit stuff be run after all the destructors have run? >> >> Not if the output from the linux version of your program is to be >> believed. ??I originally had the atexit stuff run after the dtors and saw >> this: >> >> testlib:: stop >> TestClass::~TestClass() >> >> Putting the atexit stuff first reversed the order, making it match >> linux. > >The C++ standard requires static destructors and atexit functions to >be executed in the opposite order that the corresponding constructors >were invoked and the atexit functions were registered. Since atexit() >may be called from static constructors, there should theoretically be >a single stack for destructors and atexit functions. But if that's not >practical, invoking the atexit stuff first is a fairly decent >approximation.
Actually, it really isn't if gcc is calling atexit under the hood since that muddies the waters considerably. cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
