[Bug c++/95417] New: Static storage duration objects that are constant initialized should be destroyed after the destruction of dynamically initialized object.

[Bug c++/95417] New: Static storage duration objects that are constant initialized should be destroyed after the destruction of dynamically initialized object.

[okannen at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95417

            Bug ID: 95417
           Summary: Static storage duration objects that are constant
                    initialized should be destroyed after the destruction
                    of dynamically initialized object.
           Product: gcc
           Version: 10.1.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: okannen at gmail dot com
  Target Milestone: ---

This is a bug that is here since at least GCC 5.1.

Variable with static storage duration that are constant initialized should be
destroyed after the destruction of all variables with static storage duration
that are dynamically initialized.

This is specified in the standard. This answer on SO, (by a C++ comity member I
think) explain it:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/27197836/5632316

This break the mental model that objects are destroyed in the reverse order of
their construction (even if in this case this order is not sensible).

The program whose code is bellow should output:
````
non constant delete
constant delete
```

But it output the opposite:
````
non constant delete
constant delete
```

#include <iostream>
struct NonConstant{
    NonConstant(){
        std::cout<<"";
    }

    ~NonConstant(){std::cout << "non constant delete" <<std::endl;}
};

struct Constant{

    ~Constant(){std::cout << "constant delete" <<std::endl;}
};

NonConstant a;

Constant b;

int main(){     }

[Bug c++/95417] Static storage duration objects that are constant initialized should be destroyed after the destruction of dynamically initialized object.

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95417

--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The standard is unclear here I think.  Better not change a common
implementation pattern since people may rely on current behavior.

[Bug c++/95417] Static storage duration objects that are constant initialized should be destroyed after the destruction of dynamically initialized object.

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95417

--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC, Clang and EDG all destroy b before a.

[Bug c++/95417] Static storage duration objects that are constant initialized should be destroyed after the destruction of dynamically initialized object.

[okannen at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95417

Olivier Kannengieser <okannen at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #3 from Olivier Kannengieser <okannen at gmail dot com> ---
I have just found a paragraph in the standard that specifies that GCC behavior
is standard compliant, [basic.start.term]/3:

 "If an object is initialized statically, the object is destroyed in the same
order as if the object was dynamically initialized."

[Bug c++/95417] Static storage duration objects that are constant initialized should be destroyed after the destruction of dynamically initialized object.

[okannen at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95417

Olivier Kannengieser <okannen at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|FIXED                       |INVALID

--- Comment #4 from Olivier Kannengieser <okannen at gmail dot com> ---
It is thus an invalid bug.