Xref: news2.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:3010
From: Marcelo Cantos <mcantos AT ocean DOT com DOT au>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: How safe is this?
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 22:43:12 +1100
Organization: (private)
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <317B70D0.7585@ocean.com.au>
References: <4laoi6$cgk AT groa DOT uct DOT ac DOT za>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.12.234.172
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Fabian Nunez wrote:
> class __autorun__
> {
>   public:
>   __autorun__(void) { start(); };
> } __autorun__;
> My question is - how save and/or portable is this?

This is a quite conventional way of initializing data and is perfectly safe and portable. 

One caveat is that there is no standard which determines the order of initialization of 
global objects. Hence, if, for example, your constructor calls another library that itself 
is initialized by a global object constructor, you have no portable way of guaranteeing 
that the library's constructor will be called before yours. One possible solution to this 
problem is if the library's constructor calls, say, an init() function, which can be called 
any number of times, then your global constructor could call init() before using the 
library. eg:

    ...
    __autorun__(void) { init_other_library(); start(); }
    ...
    start() { call_other_library(); }
    ...

Incidentally, the void argument is a C relic which really doesn't belong in a class member 
function; just use __autorun__(). Mind you, this is merely my opinion; I don't know where 
the "style masters" stand on this issue.