ordering of constructors

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Matt Austern <austern@apple.com> writes:

| On Apr 10, 2004, at 12:04 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| 
| > :| > I don't see why that is different from what happens when the
| > dynamic
| > | > initialization is delayed until main() as described by 3.6.2/3.
| > |
| > | Arguably it's a bad thing that the standard gives implementations
| > | freedom to do that.  The more I read this part of the standard the
| > | less happy I am with it.
| >
| > Do you believe a core issue should be raised?
| 
| Yes, and I raised one:
| http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#371

Thanks -- it looks indeed weird when sufficiently combinations are
articulated out.

| At this point I no longer believe some of what I wrote there.  In the
| issues list you'll see that I thought the standards committee couldn't
| remove this freedom because it was essential to allow dynamic
| libraries.  I now believe that we could just remove this freedom and
| explicitly say what happens in the dynamic-library case.  This is now
| my preferred solution.

So if that freedom is removed, wouldn't the existing practice for DLLs
would be affected?  Someone has an idea of what GCC does for DLLs?

-- Gaby