initialization sequence issue

[Christof Warlich]

Hi,

the few lines of code below show different results depending on
the compiler version (gcc-2.95 versus gcc-3.3 and later):

gcc-2.95 first initializes d (line 9) and then t (line 8), as
running the executable yields

initialized d
X constructor

whereas gcc-3.3 and later gcc versions do as I'd expect: They
initialize the variables as they appear in the source code:

X constructor
initialized d

Could anyone tell if the initialization sequence is specified
by the standard in such a case or if I cannot rely on the
initialization sequence even when everything is in the same translation
unit?

Thanks,

Christof

1 #include <stdio.h>
2 struct X {
3 X() {printf("X constructor\n") ;}
4 };
5 template<typena me Tstruct A {
6 static T t;
7 };
8 template<typena me TT A<T>::t;
9 X &x = A<X>::t;
10 int d = printf("initial ized d\n");
11 int main() {}

[Salt_Peter]

On Jan 5, 1:17 pm, Christof Warlich <cwarl...@gmx.d ewrote:

Hi,

the few lines of code below show different results depending on
the compiler version (gcc-2.95 versus gcc-3.3 and later):

gcc-2.95 first initializes d (line 9) and then t (line 8), as
running the executable yields

initialized d
X constructor

whereas gcc-3.3 and later gcc versions do as I'd expect: They
initialize the variables as they appear in the source code:

X constructor
initialized d

Could anyone tell if the initialization sequence is specified
by the standard in such a case or if I cannot rely on the
initialization sequence even when everything is in the same translation
unit?

Thanks,

Christof

1 #include <stdio.h>
2 struct X {
3 X() {printf("X constructor\n") ;}
4 };
5 template<typena me Tstruct A {
6 static T t;
7 };
8 template<typena me TT A<T>::t;
9 X &x = A<X>::t;
10 int d = printf("initial ized d\n");
11 int main() {}

section 3.6.2
The storage for objects with static storage duration shall be zero
initialized before any other initilization takes place

section 3.7.1 says
The keyword static applied to a class data member in a class
definition gives the data member static storage duration.
(does not cover those static members in a namespace scope!)

[Christof Warlich]

Salt_Peter schrieb:

>Could anyone tell if the initialization sequence is specified
by the standard in such a case or if I cannot rely on the
initializati on sequence even when everything is in the same translation
unit?

section 3.6.2
The storage for objects with static storage duration shall be zero
initialized before any other initilization takes place

ok, but in my case, both variables are explicitly initialized to
non-zero values.

>
section 3.7.1 says
The keyword static applied to a class data member in a class
definition gives the data member static storage duration.
(does not cover those static members in a namespace scope!)

What I really like to know is if I usually could rely on having
my global variables being initialized in the same sequence as
they appear in the source code, i.e. whether the old gcc-2.95
compiler is buggy because it initializes d _before_ t or if this
is an implementation detail that is not defined by the standard.

[Salt_Peter]

On Jan 5, 6:25 pm, Christof Warlich <cwarl...@gmx.d ewrote:

Salt_Peter schrieb:

Could anyone tell if the initialization sequence is specified
by the standard in such a case or if I cannot rely on the
initialization sequence even when everything is in the same translation
unit?

section 3.6.2
The storage for objects with static storage duration shall be zero
initialized before any other initilization takes place

ok, but in my case, both variables are explicitly initialized to
non-zero values.

That shouldn't change the result of when that member is initialized.
I was just pointing out that the above section indicates that
initialization takes place before those variables having other storage
durations. I'm trying to explain what the standard says in sequence.
3.6.2 is about static storage duration.

>

section 3.7.1 says
The keyword static applied to a class data member in a class
definition gives the data member static storage duration.
(does not cover those static members in a namespace scope!)

What I really like to know is if I usually could rely on having
my global variables being initialized in the same sequence as
they appear in the source code, i.e. whether the old gcc-2.95
compiler is buggy because it initializes d _before_ t or if this
is an implementation detail that is not defined by the standard.

3.7.1 says that a static member, as long as its not in a namespace,
has static storage duration.
The standard therefore guarentees that the static member is treated as
in 3.6.2, so gcc-2.95 appears to be non-compliant in that respect.
I'ld suggest that its not something that is implementation defined.

[Christof Warlich]

Salt_Peter schrieb:

The standard therefore guarentees that the static member is treated as
in 3.6.2, so gcc-2.95 appears to be non-compliant in that respect.
I'ld suggest that its not something that is implementation defined.

Thanks a lot for this precise answer, it will help me to convince my
colleagues from the build-team that their (hand-made) way of collecting
static ctors is not according to the standard.

[Rahul]

On Jan 6, 12:31 am, Salt_Peter <pj_h...@yahoo. comwrote:

On Jan 5, 1:17 pm, Christof Warlich <cwarl...@gmx.d ewrote:

Hi,

the few lines of code below show different results depending on
the compiler version (gcc-2.95 versus gcc-3.3 and later):

gcc-2.95 first initializes d (line 9) and then t (line 8), as
running the executable yields

initialized d
X constructor

whereas gcc-3.3 and later gcc versions do as I'd expect: They
initialize the variables as they appear in the source code:

X constructor
initialized d

Could anyone tell if the initialization sequence is specified
by the standard in such a case or if I cannot rely on the
initialization sequence even when everything is in the same translation
unit?

Thanks,

Christof

1 #include <stdio.h>
2 struct X {
3 X() {printf("X constructor\n") ;}
4 };
5 template<typena me Tstruct A {
6 static T t;
7 };
8 template<typena me TT A<T>::t;
9 X &x = A<X>::t;
10 int d = printf("initial ized d\n");
11 int main() {}

section 3.6.2
The storage for objects with static storage duration shall be zero
initialized before any other initilization takes place

section 3.7.1 says
The keyword static applied to a class data member in a class
definition gives the data member static storage duration.
(does not cover those static members in a namespace scope!)

But aren't global variables static by default? static for a global
variable just reduces the visibility scope of the global variable to
that particular compilation unit, isn't it?

[Christof Warlich]

Rahul schrieb:

>section 3.7.1 says
The keyword static applied to a class data member in a class
definition gives the data member static storage duration.
(does not cover those static members in a namespace scope!)

But aren't global variables static by default? static for a global
variable just reduces the visibility scope of the global variable to
that particular compilation unit, isn't it?

Absolutely right, that's my understanding as well.