Re: [dcplusplus-devel] Fw: patch: let windows draw ListView arrows

[<edv...@zo...>]

PLEASE skipp me of your mailinglist



Citeren James Ross <si...@wa...>:

> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "poy" <po...@12...>
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 6:11 PM
> To: "dcplusplus-devel" <dcp...@li...>
> Subject: [dcplusplus-devel] Fw:  patch: let windows draw ListView arrows
>
>> forgot the patch once again. ^^
>>
>>> here, new patch.
>>> - the function now uses SmartWin::LibraryLoader.
>>> - moved the MessageBox to MainWindow, and its string can be translated.
>>> - played with some includes...
>
> Unfortunately, this introduces a dependency on the ordering of C++ static
> initialisers in separate translation units - which is undefined by the C++
> spec, as far as I can see.
>
> The static initialisers are all done before the 'main' starts executing, and
> this particular call chain is the problem:
>
> win32\WinUtil.cpp: const SmartWin::WidgetListView::Seed
> WinUtil::Seeds::listView;
> -> causes the static construction of ->
> smartwin\source\widgets\WidgetListView.cpp: WidgetListView::Seed::Seed
> -> calls common controls check, which ultimately uses the static lock at ->
> smartwin\source\LibraryLoader.cpp: Utilities::CriticalSection
> LibraryLoader::itsCs;
>
> Now, the problem is that the initialisation of LibraryLoader::itsCs is also
> a static initialiser. If the itsCs lock is not initialised before the Seed
> constructor, the application crashes on startup.
>
> Which is exactly what happens for me. :-(
>
> The simplest, but less than ideal, fix I've found is to move the common
> control check in the Seed constructor into WidgetListView::create. Better
> ideas welcome - especially ones which don't do the check on every list view
> creation!
>
> Note that the most likely reason this has affected me and not others is that
> I'm probably the only one building with MSVC. I am only to assume GCC is
> being lucky here, as I can't find any indication that it's actually a bug in
> either compiler, it's just undefined behaviour, which is a right pain.
>
> --
> James Ross
>
> P.S. I hope I got all that right, I've spent most of the day periodically
> searching the little information on the web about C++ static initialisers,
> their orderings and compiler-specific behaviours and it's all starting to
> blur a bit.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
> Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
> _______________________________________________
> dcplusplus-devel mailing list
> dcp...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dcplusplus-devel
>