"Martin Bonner" <martin.bonner@pitechnology.com> writes:
Emil Dotchevski wrote:
3.6.2.3: It is implementation-defined whether or not the dynamic initialization (8.5, 9.4, 12.1, 12.6.1) of an object of namespace scope is done before the first statement of main. If the initialization is deferred to some point in time after the first statement of main, it shall occur before the first use of any function or object defined in the same translation unit as the object to be initialized.
Yes, but I think you will find that unless the implementation /does/ perform dynamic initialization before the first statement of main, it will have unsolvable ordering problems.
You can have unsolvable ordering problems anyway. That's the whole reason for the Meyers Singleton.
Consider a class A defined in a.cpp, and B defined in b.cpp.
a.cpp: extern B theB; A::A() { .... }
b.cpp: extern A theA; B::B() { .... }
Now then. If something from a.cpp is referenced externally then the compiler must initialize 'theB' before it starts using any of the functions in a.cpp.
Not according to the standard. Why do you say it "must?"
As far as "deadstripping" code - this has indeed been a big problem - especially in release mode. I've referred to it as overzealous optimization.
It isn't overzealous -- it's within the specifications of the standard, whether you like it or not.
Chapter and verse? (Given the above argument that dynamic initialization must happen first.)
Completely unrelated, even if your argument about ordering didn't have holes in it. Even if it is a fact that event X cannot follow event Y, there's still no reason event X has to happen at all. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com