From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@codesourcery.com>
To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: c++/2320: incorrect order of destruction of function parameters
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:06:00 -0000
Message-id: <20010319190603.20857.qmail@sourceware.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-03/msg00136.html
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR c++/2320; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@codesourcery.com>
To: James.Kanze@dresdner-bank.com
Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: c++/2320: incorrect order of destruction of function parameters
Date: 19 Mar 2001 19:56:07 +0100

 James.Kanze@dresdner-bank.com writes:
 
 [...]
 
 | According to ISO 14882:1998, paragraph 6.6/2: "On exit from scope
 | (however accomplished), destructors are called for all constructed
 | objects with automatic storage duration (named objects or temporaries)
 | that are declared in that scope, in the REVERSE order of their
 | declaration."  You will note that the objects 3 and 4, above, are
 | destructed in the order of their declaration, not the reverse order.
 | >How-To-Repeat:
 | Compile function with:
 |     g++ --verbose orderdtors.cc -o order
 | Then execute program with
 |     order
 | Output is
 | A::A(): 1
 | B::B(): 2
 | A::A(A): 3
 | B::B(B): 4
 | A::~A(): 3
 | B::~B(): 4
 | B::~B(): 2
 | A::~A(): 1
 
 Hi,
 
 I can confirm the bug you're reporting in gcc-2.95.2.
 
 However "gcc version 3.0 20010314 (prerelease)" gives the correct
 behavior
 
 A::A(): 1
 B::B(): 2
 A::A(A): 3
 B::B(B): 4
 B::~B(): 4
 A::~A(): 3
 B::~B(): 2
 A::~A(): 1
 
 
 -- Gaby
 CodeSourcery, LLC                       http://www.codesourcery.com