"Steven Schveighoffer" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:op.vso2wwsweav7ka@steve-laptop... > > If you are interested, the code that runs the static ctors is in druntime, > not the compiler.
Yea, I had a feeling druntime would be involved since the cycles get reported at runtime. Thanks for confirming, though. > In any case, I think you could do something repulsive like naming your > module nodeps_x instead of x, and have the cycle detection skip over that > module when detecting cycles. Bottom line is, there is no valid static > data before static ctors run, so you must figure out how to get the info > to the cycle detection routine without static data. I'm not very familiar with how druntime works. Are you implying that sending information from a pragma to druntime would inherently require using valid static data from a static ctor? I take it that the answer from the-powers-that-be to the question "Is there a chance that a stop-gap solution might be accepted?" is "no comment"? If there's any worry about a "there's a chance of it" being misinterpreted as a promise for inclusion, I can assure that I'm an adult and do know the difference between "yes" and "maybe".
