On 5/10/05, Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Previous to 1.5.16, static destructors were always called via a
gcc atexit mechanism. This meant that there were scenarios where
destructors would not be called at all so I made cygwin's exit call
the destructors explicitly. I just
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 07:01:07AM -0400, William M. (Mike) Miller wrote:
The order of destruction of static objects should be the inverse of
their order of construction, regardless of whether they are global or
local. In 1.5.16 and the latest snapshot, global static objects are
destroyed before
On 5/11/05, Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 07:01:07AM -0400, William M. (Mike) Miller wrote:
The order of destruction of static objects should be the inverse of
their order of construction, regardless of whether they are global or
local. In 1.5.16 and the
On 5/9/05, Dave Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Original Message
From: William M. (Mike) Miller
The output In dtor. is missing.
That's because stdout is already closed by the time your dtor runs. I
stepped right into it, it does the printf call but somewhere down in the dll
it
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 09:06:36AM -0400, William M. (Mike) Miller wrote:
On 5/9/05, Dave Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Original Message
From: William M. (Mike) Miller
The output In dtor. is missing.
That's because stdout is already closed by the time your dtor runs. I
stepped
On 5/10/05, Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 09:06:36AM -0400, William M. (Mike) Miller wrote:
I'm still left with the problem of figuring out what changed to cause
this result. Until I ran the setup application last Friday, I was
seeing output from static
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:54:45AM -0400, William M. (Mike) Miller wrote:
On 5/10/05, Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 09:06:36AM -0400, William M. (Mike) Miller wrote:
I'm still left with the problem of figuring out what changed to cause
this result. Until I
On 5/10/05, Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:54:45AM -0400, William M. (Mike) Miller wrote:
Yes, the output does appear when I call exit instead of returning
from main(). Unfortunately, that's not an option. For one thing,
this is shared code that works
On 5/10/05, Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Previous to 1.5.16, static destructors were always called via a
gcc atexit mechanism. This meant that there were scenarios where
destructors would not be called at all so I made cygwin's exit call
the destructors explicitly. I just
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 03:27:02PM -0400, William M. (Mike) Miller wrote:
On 5/10/05, Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Previous to 1.5.16, static destructors were always called via a
gcc atexit mechanism. This meant that there were scenarios where
destructors would not be called at
On 5/10/05, Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 03:27:02PM -0400, William M. (Mike) Miller wrote:
On 5/10/05, Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Previous to 1.5.16, static destructors were always called via a
gcc atexit mechanism. This meant that
William M. (Mike) Miller wrote:
I'm sure this is the result of my having done something stupid
with the setup application, but suddenly static destructors no
longer run. That is, for the following program:
#include stdio.h
struct S {
S();
~S();
} s;
S::S() {
printf(In
William M. (Mike) Miller wrote:
I'm sure this is the result of my having done something stupid
with the setup application, but suddenly static destructors no
longer run. That is, for the following program:
#include stdio.h
struct S {
S();
~S();
} s;
S::S() {
printf(In
Original Message
From: William M. (Mike) Miller
Sent: 09 May 2005 23:46
I'm sure this is the result of my having done something stupid
with the setup application, but suddenly static destructors no
longer run. That is, for the following program:
#include stdio.h
struct S {
14 matches
Mail list logo
