http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52604
--- Comment #6 from Laurent Aflonsi <laurent.alfonsi at st dot com> 2012-03-23 11:06:57 UTC --- Sorry for the late answer (sickness). Well, In fact there are 2 things in the atexit list : 1) The destruction of the "list_type" global variable. Destructor is : "std::list<std::string, __gnu_cxx::__mt_alloc<std::string, __gnu_cxx::__common_pool_policy<__gnu_cxx::__pool, true> > >::~list()" => This one is registered in atexit list by the __static_initialization_and_destruction_0() because it is a global variable. 2) The destruction of the mt_allocator itself "(anonymous namespace)::__freelist::~__freelist()" => This one is registered in atexit list during the main() execution. when first using the mt_allocator (first called get_freelist()) The above 2 destructors are registered in atexit list in this order (1 then 2). Then, they are invoked in the reverse order (2 then 1). The freelist is first destroyed (where i proposed to add zeroing), followed by the destruction of the list_type that invokes _M_get_thread_id() : __gnu_cxx::__pool<true>::_M_get_thread_id () __gnu_cxx::__pool<true>::_M_reclaim_block () __gnu_cxx::__mt_alloc<std::_List_node<std::string>, __gnu_cxx::__common_pool_policy<__gnu_cxx::__pool, true> >::deallocate(std::_List_node<std::string>*, unsigned long) () std::_List_base<std::string, __gnu_cxx::__mt_alloc<std::string, __gnu_cxx::__common_pool_policy<__gnu_cxx::__pool, true> > >::_M_put_node(std::_List_node<std::string>*) () std::_List_base<std::string, __gnu_cxx::__mt_alloc<std::string, __gnu_cxx::__common_pool_policy<__gnu_cxx::__pool, true> > >::_M_clear() () std::_List_base<std::string, __gnu_cxx::__mt_alloc<std::string, __gnu_cxx::__common_pool_policy<__gnu_cxx::__pool, true> > >::~_List_base() () std::list<std::string, __gnu_cxx::__mt_alloc<std::string, __gnu_cxx::__common_pool_policy<__gnu_cxx::__pool, true> > >::~list() () exit () Jakub, do you think this order of destruction is not justified ? Do you see another solution than the one i proposed ? Thanks very much. Laurent
