Related
I wrote a program that uses a const global variable, and I wonder if it is ok to initialize it by calling a Windows API function on the global scope, outside of any other function, and outside of main() or WinMain(). It goes something like this:
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <iostream>
#include "windows.h"
const int i_HRes = GetSystemMetrics(SM_CXSCREEN);
int main()
{ std::cout << "Horizontal screen resolution: " << i_HRes << std::endl;
std::cin.ignore();
return 0;
}
It compiles and runs without errors, but I wonder if calling an API function on the global scope could cause a problem somewhere down the line in consumer software.
My recommendation is to make the variable accessible, but put the initialization within a function, and use something from the program environment's lifecycle to trigger and initialize when things could be changed. This could be at the beginning of the program, and when the screen resolution is changed. Because it could change, I don't recommend making it constant, either.
However as to making a Windows API call in the global scope, it should be OK from a technical perspective, just make sure you understand WHEN that function is going to be called - during initialization of the program in this case. If you were calling a function that depends on a screen context already being available, or a window being available, it will fail.
In the example you showed, it’s fine. The implicit, compiler-generated code which initialises i_hRes is called in a context where it’s fine to call winapi functions. In general, by the time your program is allowed to do anything, it’s safe to do winapi things.
However, as Raymond mentioned in a comment, that’s specific to the fact that you’re making an executable program. If you were writing a DLL instead, it might be a bad idea to call outside functions.
I have the following problem: I use some classes like the following to initialize C libraries:
class Hello
{
public:
Hello()
{
cout << "Hello world" << endl;
}
~Hello()
{
cout << "Goodbye cruel world" << endl;
}
} hello_inst;
If I include this code in a hello.cc file and compile it together with another file containing my main(), then the hello_inst is created before and destroyed after the call
to main(). In this case it just prints some lines, in my project I initialize libxml via
LIBXML_TEST_VERSION.
I am creating multiple executables which share a lot of the same code in a cmake project.
According to this thread: Adding multiple executables in CMake I created a static library containing the code shown above and then linked the executables against that library. Unfortunately in that case the hello_inst is never created (and libxml2 is never initialized). How can I fix this problem?
I had a similar problem and solved it by defining my libraries as static. Therefore I used the following code:
add_library( MyLib SHARED ${LBMLIB_SRCS} ${LBMLIB_HEADER})
Maybe this fixes your problem
There is no official way of forcing shared libraries global variables to be initialised by the standard and is compiler dependent.
Usually this is done either the first time something in that library is actually used (A class, function, or variable) or when the variable itself is actually used.
If you want to force hello_inst to be used, call a function on it, then see if and when the constructor and destructors are called.
Read this thread for more information:
http://www.gamedev.net/topic/622861-how-to-force-global-variable-which-define-in-a-static-library-to-initialize/
As far as I'm aware, statics defined in library should be constructed before main is called and destroyed after main, in the manner you describe. Indeed I have used shared libraries in many projects, and have never encountered the problems you describe.
I understand a library file, to be little more than a container of object files.
However, that said.....
If your code does nothing with the object that is created, the linker is free to remove it (dead code removal). I would suggest making sure the static object is referenced. Call a member function, perhaps?
As a newbie to c++, coming from python, I'm not sure why c++ doesn't allow statements outside of a function (in the global namespace?). It seems like this could be useful to do some initialization before main() is called or other functions are even declared. (I'm not trying to argue with the compiler, I'd just like to know the thought process behind implementing it this way.)
When you're running a python program, the interpreter runs through it from top to bottom executing as it goes. In C++, that doesn't happen. The compiler builds all your functions into little blobs of machine code and then the linker hooks them up. At runtime, the operating system calls your main function, and everything goes on from there. In that context, code outside of functions is meaningless - when would it run?
This can be thought of as a style difference between C++ and Python. However, there are pretty good reasons for it too. In C and C++, there is a very clear and specific place that the execution of your code starts from, and that's the beginning of the main() function (of course, this is only an approximation of the truth, but we can ignore that for now.) Actually, a C/C++ program starts and ends with the main() function which - in my opinion - helps quite a lot when you want to understand what a program actually does. The high-level flow of the program is clearer. Contrast this with the alternative; with code scattered all through the file and in between functions and whatnot.
Even in a well-organized and non-trivial Python program, you put your main body of code under an if __name__ == "__main__":, don't you?
Now for some stuff that are a little bit more advanced. There are ways for code to run before the main() function is called. Here's one of them:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
bool RunBeforeMain ()
{
cout << "Before main()!" << endl;
return true;
}
// This variable here causes the above function to be called
bool ignore_this_variable = RunBeforeMain ();
int main ()
{
cout << "Start of main()" << endl;
return 0;
}
Also, the constructors of all the global variables and all the static members of classes and some platform-dependent stuff are run before main(). Analogously, there are ways for code to run after the main() is finished. Those are usually the destructors for objects constructed before main() began, and functions registered with the atexit() function.
The main() is the access point to the program. So any code you wanna write would be needs to have an order of execution from that point.
Static variables are initiated before the main() is executed, so you can initiate whatever variables you need before that.
But if you want run code that initiates the state of the program, you should do it just in the beginning of the program, and abuse the static variables and do it some constructor.
I have a .cpp file (let's call it statinit.cpp) compiled and linked into my executable using gcc.
My main() function is not in statinit.cpp.
statinit.cpp has some static initializations that I need running.
However, I never explicitly reference anything from statinit.cpp in my main(), or in anything referenced by it.
What happens (I suppose) is that the linked object created from statinit.cpp is never loaded on runtime, so my static initializations are never run, causing a problem elsewhere in the code (that was very difficult to debug, but I traced it eventually).
Is there a standard library function, linker option, compiler option, or something that can let me force that object to load on runtime without referencing one of its elements?
What I thought to do is to define a dummy function in statinit.cpp, declare it in a header file that main() sees, and call that dummy function from main(). However, this is a very ugly solution and I'd very much like to avoid making changes in statinit.cpp itself.
Thanks,
Daniel
It is not exactly clear what the problem is:
C++ does not have the concept of static initializers.
So one presume you have an object in "File Scope".
If this object is in the global namespace then it will be constructed before main() is called and destroyed after main() exits (assuming it is in the application).
If this object is in a namespace then optionally the implementation can opt to lazy initialize the variable. This just means that it will be fully initialized before first use. So if you are relying on a side affect from construction then put the object in the global namespace.
Now a reason you may not be seeing the constructor to this object execute is that it was not linked into the application. This is a linker issue and not a language issue. This happens when the object is compiled into a static library and your application is then linked against the static library. The linker will only load into the application functions/objects that are explicitly referenced from the application (ie things that resolve undefined things in the symbol table).
To solve this problem you have a couple of options.
Don't use static libraries.
Compile into dynamic libraries (the norm nowadays).
Compile all the source directly into the application.
Make an explicit reference to the object from within main.
I ran into the same problem.
Write a file, DoNotOptimizeAway.cpp:
void NoDeadcodeElimination()
{
// Here use at least once each of the variables that you'll need.
}
Then call NoDeadcodeElimination() from main.
EDIT: alternatively you can edit your linker options and tell it to always link everything, even if it's not used. I don't like this approach though since executables will get much bigger.
These problems, and the problems with these potential solutions all revolve around the fact that you can't guarantee much about static initialization. So since it's not dependable, don't depend on it!
Explicitly initialize data with a static "InititalizeLibrary" type static function. Now you guarantee it happens, and you guarantee when it happens in relation to other code based on when you make the call.
One C++'ish way to do this is with Singletons.
Essentially, write a function to return a reference to the object. To force it to initialize, make it a static object inside the function.
Make a class static function that is vaguely like this:
class MyClass {
static MyClass& getObject()
{
static MyObject obj;
return obj;
}
};
Since you are using C++, you could always declare a global object (ie a global variable that references a class in statinit.cpp. As always, the constructor will be called on initialization and since the object is global, this will be called before main() is run.
There is one very important caveat though. There is no guarantee as to when the constructor will be called and there is no way to explicitly order when each of these constructors is called. This will also probably defeat any attempt to check for memory leaks since you can no longer guarantee that all the memory allocated while running main has been deallocated.
Is the problem that the static items were never initialized, or is the problem that the static items weren't initialized when you needed to use them?
All static initialization is supposed to be finished before your main() runs. However, you can run into issues if you initialize on static object with another static object. (Note: this doesn't apply if you are using primitives such as int)
For example, if you have in file x.cpp:
static myClass x(someVals);
And in y.cpp:
static myClass y = x * 2;
It's possible that the system will try to instantiate y before x is created. In that case, the "y" variable will likely be 0, as x is likely 0 before it is initialized.
In general, the best solution for this is to instantiate the object when it is first used (if possible). However, I noticed above you weren't allowed to modify that file. Are the values from that file being used elsewhere, and maybe you can change how those values are accessed?
Read the manual page for the ld command and look at the -u option. If statinit.cpp defines anything that looks like a function then try naming it in -u. Otherwise choose a data object that's defined in statinit.cpp and name that in -u, and hope it works. I think it's best if you write the command line so the -u option comes immediately before your -l option for your library that has statinit's object code in it.
Of course the dynamic library solution is the best, but I've also been told it's possible to link the whole static library with the linker option:
-Wl,-whole-archive
before the library's -l option, and
-Wl,-no-whole-archive
after it (to avoid including other libraries as a whole, too).
We've run into some problems with the static initialization order fiasco, and I'm looking for ways to comb through a whole lot of code to find possible occurrences. Any suggestions on how to do this efficiently?
Edit: I'm getting some good answers on how to SOLVE the static initialization order problem, but that's not really my question. I'd like to know how to FIND objects that are subject to this problem. Evan's answer seems to be the best so far in this regard; I don't think we can use valgrind, but we may have memory analysis tools that could perform a similar function. That would catch problems only where the initialization order is wrong for a given build, and the order can change with each build. Perhaps there's a static analysis tool that would catch this. Our platform is IBM XLC/C++ compiler running on AIX.
Solving order of initialization:
First off, this is just a temporary work-around because you have global variables that you are trying to get rid of but just have not had time yet (you are going to get rid of them eventually aren't you? :-)
class A
{
public:
// Get the global instance abc
static A& getInstance_abc() // return a reference
{
static A instance_abc;
return instance_abc;
}
};
This will guarantee that it is initialised on first use and destroyed when the application terminates.
Multi-Threaded Problem:
C++11 does guarantee that this is thread-safe:
§6.7 [stmt.dcl] p4
If control enters the declaration concurrently while the variable is being initialized, the concurrent execution shall wait for completion of the initialization.
However, C++03 does not officially guarantee that the construction of static function objects is thread safe. So technically the getInstance_XXX() method must be guarded with a critical section. On the bright side, gcc has an explicit patch as part of the compiler that guarantees that each static function object will only be initialized once even in the presence of threads.
Please note: Do not use the double checked locking pattern to try and avoid the cost of the locking. This will not work in C++03.
Creation Problems:
On creation, there are no problems because we guarantee that it is created before it can be used.
Destruction Problems:
There is a potential problem of accessing the object after it has been destroyed. This only happens if you access the object from the destructor of another global variable (by global, I am referring to any non-local static variable).
The solution is to make sure that you force the order of destruction.
Remember the order of destruction is the exact inverse of the order of construction. So if you access the object in your destructor, you must guarantee that the object has not been destroyed. To do this, you must just guarantee that the object is fully constructed before the calling object is constructed.
class B
{
public:
static B& getInstance_Bglob;
{
static B instance_Bglob;
return instance_Bglob;;
}
~B()
{
A::getInstance_abc().doSomthing();
// The object abc is accessed from the destructor.
// Potential problem.
// You must guarantee that abc is destroyed after this object.
// To guarantee this you must make sure it is constructed first.
// To do this just access the object from the constructor.
}
B()
{
A::getInstance_abc();
// abc is now fully constructed.
// This means it was constructed before this object.
// This means it will be destroyed after this object.
// This means it is safe to use from the destructor.
}
};
I just wrote a bit of code to track down this problem. We have a good size code base (1000+ files) that was working fine on Windows/VC++ 2005, but crashing on startup on Solaris/gcc.
I wrote the following .h file:
#ifndef FIASCO_H
#define FIASCO_H
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// [WS 2010-07-30] Detect the infamous "Static initialization order fiasco"
// email warrenstevens --> [initials]#[firstnamelastname].com
// read --> http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/ctors.html#faq-10.12 if you haven't suffered
// To enable this feature --> define E-N-A-B-L-E-_-F-I-A-S-C-O-_-F-I-N-D-E-R, rebuild, and run
#define ENABLE_FIASCO_FINDER
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
#ifdef ENABLE_FIASCO_FINDER
#include <iostream>
#include <fstream>
inline bool WriteFiasco(const std::string& fileName)
{
static int counter = 0;
++counter;
std::ofstream file;
file.open("FiascoFinder.txt", std::ios::out | std::ios::app);
file << "Starting to initialize file - number: [" << counter << "] filename: [" << fileName.c_str() << "]" << std::endl;
file.flush();
file.close();
return true;
}
// [WS 2010-07-30] If you get a name collision on the following line, your usage is likely incorrect
#define FIASCO_FINDER static const bool g_psuedoUniqueName = WriteFiasco(__FILE__);
#else // ENABLE_FIASCO_FINDER
// do nothing
#define FIASCO_FINDER
#endif // ENABLE_FIASCO_FINDER
#endif //FIASCO_H
and within every .cpp file in the solution, I added this:
#include "PreCompiledHeader.h" // (which #include's the above file)
FIASCO_FINDER
#include "RegularIncludeOne.h"
#include "RegularIncludeTwo.h"
When you run your application, you will get an output file like so:
Starting to initialize file - number: [1] filename: [p:\\OneFile.cpp]
Starting to initialize file - number: [2] filename: [p:\\SecondFile.cpp]
Starting to initialize file - number: [3] filename: [p:\\ThirdFile.cpp]
If you experience a crash, the culprit should be in the last .cpp file listed. And at the very least, this will give you a good place to set breakpoints, as this code should be the absolute first of your code to execute (after which you can step through your code and see all of the globals that are being initialized).
Notes:
It's important that you put the "FIASCO_FINDER" macro as close to the top of your file as possible. If you put it below some other #includes you run the risk of it crashing before identifying the file that you're in.
If you're using Visual Studio, and pre-compiled headers, adding this extra macro line to all of your .cpp files can be done quickly using the Find-and-replace dialog to replace your existing #include "precompiledheader.h" with the same text plus the FIASCO_FINDER line (if you check off "regular expressions, you can use "\n" to insert multi-line replacement text)
Depending on your compiler, you can place a breakpoint at the constructor initialization code. In Visual C++, this is the _initterm function, which is given a start and end pointer of a list of the functions to call.
Then step into each function to get the file and function name (assuming you've compiled with debugging info on). Once you have the names, step out of the function (back up to _initterm) and continue until _initterm exits.
That gives you all the static initializers, not just the ones in your code - it's the easiest way to get an exhaustive list. You can filter out the ones you have no control over (such as those in third-party libraries).
The theory holds for other compilers but the name of the function and the capability of the debugger may change.
perhaps use valgrind to find usage of uninitialized memory. The nicest solution to the "static initialization order fiasco" is to use a static function which returns an instance of the object like this:
class A {
public:
static X &getStatic() { static X my_static; return my_static; }
};
This way you access your static object is by calling getStatic, this will guarantee it is initialized on first use.
If you need to worry about order of de-initialization, return a new'd object instead of a statically allocated object.
EDIT: removed the redundant static object, i dunno why but i mixed and matched two methods of having a static together in my original example.
There is code that essentially "initializes" C++ that is generated by the compiler. An easy way to find this code / the call stack at the time is to create a static object with something that dereferences NULL in the constructor - break in the debugger and explore a bit. The MSVC compiler sets up a table of function pointers that is iterated over for static initialization. You should be able to access this table and determine all static initialization taking place in your program.
We've run into some problems with the
static initialization order fiasco,
and I'm looking for ways to comb
through a whole lot of code to find
possible occurrences. Any suggestions
on how to do this efficiently?
It's not a trivial problem but at least it can done following fairly simple steps if you have an easy-to-parse intermediate-format representation of your code.
1) Find all the globals that have non-trivial constructors and put them in a list.
2) For each of these non-trivially-constructed objects, generate the entire potential-function-tree called by their constructors.
3) Walk through the non-trivially-constructor function tree and if the code references any other non-trivially constructed globals (which are quite handily in the list you generated in step one), you have a potential early-static-initialization-order issue.
4) Repeat steps 2 & 3 until you have exhausted the list generated in step 1.
Note: you may be able to optimize this by only visiting the potential-function-tree once per object class rather than once per global instance if you have multiple globals of a single class.
Replace all the global objects with global functions that return a reference to an object declared static in the function. This isn't thread-safe, so if your app is multi-threaded you might need some tricks like pthread_once or a global lock. This will ensure that everything is initialized before it is used.
Now, either your program works (hurrah!) or else it sits in an infinite loop because you have a circular dependency (redesign needed), or else you move on to the next bug.
The first thing you need to do is make a list of all static objects that have non-trivial constructors.
Given that, you either need to plug through them one at a time, or simply replace them all with singleton-pattern objects.
The singleton pattern comes in for a lot of criticism, but the lazy "as-required" construction is a fairly easy way to fix the majority of the problems now and in the future.
old...
MyObject myObject
new...
MyObject &myObject()
{
static MyObject myActualObject;
return myActualObject;
}
Of course, if your application is multi-threaded, this can cause you more problems than you had in the first place...
Gimpel Software (www.gimpel.com) claims that their PC-Lint/FlexeLint static analysis tools will detect such problems.
I have had good experience with their tools, but not with this specific issue so I can't vouch for how much they would help.
Some of these answers are now out of date. For the sake of people coming from search engines, like myself:
On Linux and elsewhere, finding instances of this problem is possible through Google's AddressSanitizer.
AddressSanitizer is a part of LLVM starting with version 3.1 and a
part of GCC starting with version 4.8
You would then do something like the following:
$ g++ -fsanitize=address -g staticA.C staticB.C staticC.C -o static
$ ASAN_OPTIONS=check_initialization_order=true:strict_init_order=true ./static
=================================================================
==32208==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco on address ... at ...
#0 0x400f96 in firstClass::getValue() staticC.C:13
#1 0x400de1 in secondClass::secondClass() staticB.C:7
...
See here for more details:
https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizerInitializationOrderFiasco
Other answers are correct, I just wanted to add that the object's getter should be implemented in a .cpp file and it should not be static. If you implement it in a header file, the object will be created in each library / framework you call it from....
If your project is in Visual Studio (I've tried this with VC++ Express 2005, and with Visual Studio 2008 Pro):
Open Class View (Main menu->View->Class View)
Expand each project in your solution and Click on "Global Functions and Variables"
This should give you a decent list of all of the globals that are subject to the fiasco.
In the end, a better approach is to try to remove these objects from your project (easier said than done, sometimes).