[Live-devel] Static Initialization Issues

[Ross Finlayson]

> On Aug 12, 2015, at 6:59 PM, Jeremiah Morrill <Jeremiah.Morrill at econnect.tv> wrote:
> 
> I’ve come across an issue where a BasicTaskScheduler0 gets statically initialized (ran before main(…))

I don’t see how this can be happening with the code that we’ve supplied, because the “BasicTaskScheduler0” constructor is protected, and the only subclass of “BasicTaskScheduler0” that we define is “BasicTaskScheduler”, which also has a protected constructor (and whose objects are created only by a “createNew()” function).

But perhaps you’ve defined your own subclass of “BasicTaskScheduler0”, and are declaring an object of that subclass statically??  I’d advise against this, because the distinction between “BasicTaskScheduler0” and “BasicTaskScheduler” is historic and rather arbitrary - and in the future the “BasicTaskScheduler0” class might get folded back into “BasicTaskScheduler”.

In any case, as you’ve discovered, declaring these objects statically this is a bad idea (and was never intended).  So you shouldn’t do it :-)


> Essentially in a statically initialized environment, the ETERNITY const may not have been set

There may be other uninitialized things as well that the “BasicTaskScheduler” depends on.  So once again, to be safe, you shouldn’t declare this statically.

Ross Finlayson
Live Networks, Inc.
http://www.live555.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.live555.com/pipermail/live-devel/attachments/20150812/335bb103/attachment.html>