74a
Subj : Re: Can you mimic atexit() for class functions?
To   : borland.public.cpp.borlandcpp
From : "Benjamin Pratt" <benjamin.pratt.getridofthis@verizon.net>
Date : Wed Oct 08 2003 09:08 pm

This may be the order BC destructs its objects, but I'm pretty sure that the
standard does not define a destruction order, as Jeff stated. Please point
me to the reference in the standard if I'm wrong. (It would be nice if I am
wrong, since cleanup would be easier)


"Ed Mulroy [TeamB]" <dont_email_me@bitbuc.ket> wrote in message
news:3f84121d@newsgroups.borland.com...
> Yes there is an order.
>
> Class instances which are declared globally will have their destructor
> called at the end of the program.
>
> Class instances which are allocated at runtime with new will have their
> destructor called when delete is called for them.
>
> Class instances declared as local variables within a function will have
> their destructor called when the function returns.
>
> Class instances returned as temporary instances from a function will have
> their destructor called after the calling line is finished.
>
> So if you declare a global instance of a class then its destructor will be
> called when the program ends.
>
> This has nothing to do with when a DLL would be unloaded.  That is a
> different subject.
>
> .  Ed
>
> > Jeff Kish wrote in message
> > news:6928ovsifnp973naqmk2l9k18jdfmnlf9n@4ax.com...
> >
> > Hey, don't forget, I don't thinkg there is any guarantee as far as the
> > order of creation/destruction goes for static/global objects.
> > I'm right, aren't I? Also the order of dlls and how they get shut down
> > is unpredictable also, isn't it? I think this makes final cleanup
> > painful sometimes.
> > I appreciate any clarification/tutorial/"you ought to know better"
> > type information here.
>
>

.

0