| // Copyright 2013 The Rust Project Developers. See the COPYRIGHT |
| // file at the top-level directory of this distribution and at |
| // http://rust-lang.org/COPYRIGHT. |
| // |
| // Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 <LICENSE-APACHE or |
| // http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0> or the MIT license |
| // <LICENSE-MIT or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>, at your |
| // option. This file may not be copied, modified, or distributed |
| // except according to those terms. |
| |
| // In theory, it doesn't matter what order destructors are run in for rust |
| // because we have explicit ownership of values meaning that there's no need to |
| // run one before another. With unsafe code, however, there may be a safe |
| // interface which relies on fields having their destructors run in a particular |
| // order. At the time of this writing, std::rt::sched::Scheduler is an example |
| // of a structure which contains unsafe handles to FFI-like types, and the |
| // destruction order of the fields matters in the sense that some handles need |
| // to get destroyed before others. |
| // |
| // In C++, destruction order happens bottom-to-top in order of field |
| // declarations, but we currently run them top-to-bottom. I don't think the |
| // order really matters that much as long as we define what it is. |
| |
| |
| struct A; |
| struct B; |
| struct C { |
| a: A, |
| b: B, |
| } |
| |
| static mut hit: bool = false; |
| |
| impl Drop for A { |
| fn drop(&mut self) { |
| unsafe { |
| assert!(!hit); |
| hit = true; |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| |
| impl Drop for B { |
| fn drop(&mut self) { |
| unsafe { |
| assert!(hit); |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| |
| pub fn main() { |
| let _c = C { a: A, b: B }; |
| } |