Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 19:02:02 +0200 From: Dimitry Andric <dimitry@andric.com> To: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@scsiguy.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New nvidia drivers available Message-ID: <1526906437.20040815190202@andric.com> In-Reply-To: <932D0AB64B5988A5BC8FFBAF@aslan.scsiguy.com> References: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0408151001050.15254-100000@sea.ntplx.net> <200408151553.32463.dfr@nlsystems.com> <932D0AB64B5988A5BC8FFBAF@aslan.scsiguy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
------------533D1FF33D213B4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2004-08-15 at 17:00:56 Justin T. Gibbs wrote: > I thought that static constructor invocation was deterministic based > on link order. Does the C++ spec really indicate that the order of > construction can be random? The spec only says "implementation-defined" and "not guaranteed" (see section 3.6.2, point 3 of the ISO C++ spec), so you're on your own, it seems. :) See also: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/ctors.html#faq-10.11 ([10.11] What's the "static initialization order fiasco"?) Of course, in most cases, any static constructors will be called in the order that you link them in. But there's no guarantee whatsoever... ------------533D1FF33D213B4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) iD8DBQFBH5cKsF6jCi4glqMRAn15AJ43w9T7vj+CiDgvseTMGShUFob7zACfamMr ZNqfxEEymZ4txZu7OUk40TU= =uDCa -----END PGP MESSAGE----- ------------533D1FF33D213B4--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1526906437.20040815190202>