Re: Order of destruction of static members and static objects

From:

Vladimir Jovic <vladaspams@gmail.com>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++

Date:

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:23:13 +0100

Message-ID:

<hf0v0r$6nf$1@news.albasani.net>

Juha Nieminen wrote:

James Kanze wrote:

But does that ensure that it's not accessed after it has been
destroyed? If not, how do you make sure it's not?

std::vector< int >&
    sharedContainer()
    {
        static std::vector< int >* theOneAndOnly = new std::vecctor< int >;
        return *theOneAndOnly;
    }

The standard singleton idiom, in fact.

So you mean that you have to deliberately introduce a memory leak if
you want to make sure the container is not accessed after it has been
destroyed?

Is there *really* no better way of doing it?

How about this:

class SharedContainer
{
   public:
      SharedContainer()
      {
        if ( 0 == Counter() )
        {
          c() = new Container;
        }
        ++Counter();
      }
      ~SharedContainer()
      {
        --Counter();
        if ( 0 == Counter() )
        {
          delete c();
        }
      }

      Container& GetContainer()
      {
        assert( NULL != c() );
        return *c();
      }

   private:

      Container *& c()
      {
        static Container *c = NULL;
        return c;
      }
      int& Counter()
      {
        static int n = 0;
        return n;
      }
};

warning : I haven't tested this, but I am sure you got an idea ;)

--
ultrasound www.ezono.com