[Bug c++/56009] New: Nested global destruction semantics not working (mingw)

[Bug c++/56009] New: Nested global destruction semantics not working (mingw)

[daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56009

             Bug #: 56009
           Summary: Nested global destruction semantics not working
                    (mingw)
    Classification: Unclassified
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.7.2
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
        AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
        ReportedBy: daniel.kruegler@googlemail.com


The following program - compiled with flags

-Wall -pedantic-errors

produces an unexpected output:

//-----------------------------------
extern "C" int printf(const char *, ...);

class A {
  A(const A&);
  A& operator=(const A&);
  A() { printf("A()\n"); }
  ~A() { printf("~A()\n"); }

public:
  void use() {
    printf("A is here!\n");
  }

  static A& get_instance() {
    static A result;
    return result;
  }
};

void use_A(const char* message) {
  A& a = A::get_instance();
  printf("Using A %s\n", message);
  a.use();
}

struct B {
  ~B() { use_A("from ~B()"); }
} b;

int main() {}
//-----------------------------------

A()
Using A from ~B()
A is here!

Note the lack of the expected last line:

~A()

Some further characteristics:

1) The problem is observed on a mingw-64bit system (Windows 7). I have been
told that the problem doesn't occur on Linux(?) systems (Thanks to Jonathan
Wakely)

2) The kind of global destruction semantics doesn't matter: Instead of a local
static variables we can use corresponding series of nested atexit()
registrations.

3) The problem is not related to flushing: Replacement of above printf calls by
e.g. std::cout with an effective std::flush call doesn't change anything

[Bug c++/56009] Nested global destruction semantics not working (mingw)

[daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56009

Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com> 2013-01-21 10:45:58 UTC ---
Added Kai hoping to raise his interest in this issue ;-)

[Bug target/56009] Nested global destruction semantics not working (mingw)

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56009

Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2013-01-21
                 CC|                            |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
          Component|c++                         |target
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2013-01-21 11:03:20 UTC ---
Let's add Jason in CC. Confirmed that doesn't happen on Linux.

[Bug target/56009] Nested global destruction semantics not working (mingw)

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56009

--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This is IIRC the whole atexit vs __cxa_atexit issue.

[Bug target/56009] Nested global destruction semantics not working (mingw)

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56009

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           See Also|                            |https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
                   |                            |a/show_bug.cgi?id=2474

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> This is IIRC the whole atexit vs __cxa_atexit issue.

Which is PR 2474 .