On 2010-03-11 13:26:17 -0500, Walter Bright <newshou...@digitalmars.com> said:
Max Samukha wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
I'd like to point out that the trick of creating a separate module to
initialize another one is not much safer than C++ static initialization.
Take for instance std.stdio which it is initialized by std.stdiobase's
static constructor. If your module import std.stdio and attempt to use
the standard input/output/error streams in a static constructor, there
is no guaranty that std.stdiobase static constructor will have been
called before yours (unless you also import std.stdiobase). It might
end up crashing depending on link order.
If your module imports std.stdio, std.stdiobase's static constructor is
guaranteed to run before your module's static constructors because your
module depends on std.stdiobase indirectly via std.studio.
Max is correct. This is not a problem, because the dependency checking
is transitive.
Ah, you're right indeed. I thought it was std.stdiobase that imported
std.stdio, but its the reverse so it's a little better.
Still, std.stdiobase uses this clever external definition to avoid a
circular import:
extern(C) void std_stdio_static_this();
This hack is basically just a bypass of the circular dependency check
for one module. If more than one module use it, you're at risk of
having the behaviour dependent on the link order.
--
Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
