Maybe bug in call function to static declaration variable?

[Gilberto Cuba Ricardo]

Hi Axel,

Axel Freyn escribió:

[CUT]

> I simply added debug output before/after each "event"

> My gcc-generated executable says the following at runtime:

> main 1
> type_schema called the 1 time
> type_schema 1
> Contructor called the 1 time
> Constructor sponge_object_schema: 1
> type_schema called the 2 time
> type_schema 1
> terminate called after throwing an instance of '__gnu_cxx::recursive_init_error'
>   what():  std::exception

Well, MSVS2010 returned this result:

main 1
type_schema called the 1 time
type_schema 1
Contructor called the 1 time
Constructor sponge_object_schema: 1
type_schema called the 2 time
type_schema 1
type_schema 2
Constructor sponge_object_schema: 3
type_schema 2
main 2

This is very very strange, because after the second "type_schema 1",
when the execute line of the debug is on line:

static sponge_object_schema result;

it isn't call a "sponge_object_schema" constructor, and then the
program follow the standard execution.

> This seems to me the only "clean" solution to this problem...

> I would really be interested what MSVS is doing to overcome this
> problem? No matter what he does, it IS dangerous (I think...):
> 1) if he outputs "type_schema 2" BEFORE "Constructor
> sponge_object_schema: 3" that would mean that he ignored the constructor
> in "type_schema" before the constructor is finished ==> it would be very
> dangerous to use the static variable "result" there, as its not yet
> completely constructed...

This is that he does!, at least I think, and I don't understand why
you think it's very dangerous.

> 2) if he outputs "type_schema 2" AFTER "Constructor
> sponge_object_schema: 3" that would mean that he ignored the call to
> "type_schema" in the constructor ==> it do not see any possible
> explanation why that would be justified or reasonable ...

It isn't the case.

> (Well, mabye there is some paragraph somewhere in the C++-standard which
> defines this situation as "undefined behaviour"? Then the compiler could
> of course do whatever he wants...)

Maybe it's possible, though, I searched in the working draft of
standard programming c++ of this year that: "Static initialization shall
be performed before any dynamic initialization takes place. Dynamic
initialization of non-local variable with static storage duration is either
ordered or unordered. Definitions of explicitly specialized class template
static data members have ordered initialization."

> Best Regards,
> Axel

-- 
Best regards,
 Gilberto Cuba Ricardo