On 5/11/05, Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 07:01:07AM -0400, William M. (Mike) Miller wrote:
> >The order of destruction of static objects should be the inverse of
> >their order of construction, regardless of whether they are global or
> >local. In 1.5.16
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 07:01:07AM -0400, William M. (Mike) Miller wrote:
>The order of destruction of static objects should be the inverse of
>their order of construction, regardless of whether they are global or
>local. In 1.5.16 and the latest snapshot, global static objects are
>destroyed befo
On 5/10/05, Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Previous to 1.5.16, static destructors were always called via a
> gcc "atexit" mechanism. This meant that there were scenarios where
> destructors would not be called at all so I made cygwin's exit call
> the destructors explicitly. I j
On 5/10/05, Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 03:27:02PM -0400, William M. (Mike) Miller wrote:
> >On 5/10/05, Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Previous to 1.5.16, static destructors were always called via a
> >> gcc "atexit" mechanism. This
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 03:27:02PM -0400, William M. (Mike) Miller wrote:
>On 5/10/05, Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Previous to 1.5.16, static destructors were always called via a
>> gcc "atexit" mechanism. This meant that there were scenarios where
>> destructors would not be
On 5/10/05, Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Previous to 1.5.16, static destructors were always called via a
> gcc "atexit" mechanism. This meant that there were scenarios where
> destructors would not be called at all so I made cygwin's exit call
> the destructors explicitly. I j
On 5/10/05, Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:54:45AM -0400, William M. (Mike) Miller wrote:
> >Yes, the output does appear when I call exit instead of returning
> >from main(). Unfortunately, that's not an option. For one thing,
> >this is shared code tha
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:54:45AM -0400, William M. (Mike) Miller wrote:
>On 5/10/05, Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 09:06:36AM -0400, William M. (Mike) Miller wrote:
>> >I'm still left with the problem of figuring out what changed to cause
>> >this result
On 5/10/05, Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 09:06:36AM -0400, William M. (Mike) Miller wrote:
> >I'm still left with the problem of figuring out what changed to cause
> >this result. Until I ran the "setup" application last Friday, I was
> >seeing output fro
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 09:06:36AM -0400, William M. (Mike) Miller wrote:
>On 5/9/05, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Original Message
>> >From: William M. (Mike) Miller
>> > The output "In dtor." is missing.
>>
>> That's because stdout is already closed by the time your dtor runs
On 5/9/05, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Original Message
> >From: William M. (Mike) Miller
> > The output "In dtor." is missing.
>
> That's because stdout is already closed by the time your dtor runs. I
> stepped right into it, it does the printf call but somewhere down in the
Original Message
>From: William M. (Mike) Miller
>Sent: 09 May 2005 23:46
> I'm sure this is the result of my having done something stupid
> with the setup application, but suddenly static destructors no
> longer run. That is, for the following program:
>
> #include
> struct S {
William M. (Mike) Miller wrote:
I'm sure this is the result of my having done something stupid
with the setup application, but suddenly static destructors no
longer run. That is, for the following program:
#include
struct S {
S();
~S();
} s;
S::S() {
printf("In ctor.\n"
William M. (Mike) Miller wrote:
I'm sure this is the result of my having done something stupid
with the setup application, but suddenly static destructors no
longer run. That is, for the following program:
#include
struct S {
S();
~S();
} s;
S::S() {
printf("In ctor.\n"
I'm sure this is the result of my having done something stupid
with the setup application, but suddenly static destructors no
longer run. That is, for the following program:
#include
struct S {
S();
~S();
} s;
S::S() {
printf("In ctor.\n");
}
S::~S() {
15 matches
Mail list logo
