http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6113



--- Comment #3 from Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> 2011-06-06 00:13:27 
PDT ---
That's why I opened bug# 6114. I'm going to close this one once my fix has been
merged in, since that fixes the problem with std.datetime. But there _is_ a
compiler bug here. Bug# 6114 covers that.

Everything that I've read says that the static constructors are supposed
supposed to be run in lexical order within a module, and the the compiler will
order the initialization of the modules such that they're run in the order
necessary to initialize everything before it's used. I haven't seen anything
that would indicate that hared static constructors should be treated any
differently from other static constructors as far as initialization order goes.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to