This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: mt_allocator: static DE-initialization order fiasco?

From: Carlo Wood <carlo at alinoe dot com>
To: rittle at latour dot waar dot labs dot mot dot com, pcarlini at suse dot de
Cc: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 03:57:43 +0200
Subject: Re: mt_allocator: static DE-initialization order fiasco?
References: <20041010162821.GA8496@alinoe.com> <41696BEF.1010903@suse.de> <20041010231905.GA19240@alinoe.com> <4169D04F.7030202@suse.de> <200410120116.i9C1GXwY045273@latour.waar.labs.mot.com>

Please note that Benjamins last patch for [v3] libstdc++/17937
also changes the behaviour of my test case.

The pool is no longer destructed/cleaned up - so there cannot
be deinitialization order problem anymore.

If you want to test this, then you have to use a version
prior to this last patch.

-- 
Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: mt_allocator: static DE-initialization order fiasco?
  - From: Loren James Rittle

References:
- mt_allocator: static DE-initialization order fiasco?
  - From: Carlo Wood
- Re: mt_allocator: static DE-initialization order fiasco?
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: mt_allocator: static DE-initialization order fiasco?
  - From: Carlo Wood
- Re: mt_allocator: static DE-initialization order fiasco?
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: mt_allocator: static DE-initialization order fiasco?
  - From: Loren James Rittle

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]