Can the static initialization order fiasco occur in C programs?
Static initialization in C does not have the same problems that C++ has.
In C, objects with static storage duration may only be initialized via constant expressions, i.e. values that can be computed at compile time, so there are no issues that can arise regarding order of initialization.
In contrast, C++ allows calling functions to initialize static objects, and the order in which those functions are called are not well-defined.
C++ static initialization order
You have answered your own question. Static initialization order is undefined, and the most elegant way around it (while still doing static initialization i.e. not refactoring it away completely) is to wrap the initialization in a function.
Read the C++ FAQ items starting from https://isocpp.org/wiki/faq/ctors#static-init-order
Determine static initialization order after compilation?
Matthew Wilson provides a way to answer this question in this section (Safari Books Online subscription required) of Imperfect C++. (Good book, by the way.) To summarize, he creates a CUTrace.h header that creates a static instance of a class that prints the filename of the including source file (using the nonstandard preprocessor macro __BASE_FILE__) when created, then he includes CUTrace.h in every source file.
This requires a recompilation, but the #include "CUTrace.h" can easily be added and removed via a script, so it shouldn't be too hard to set up.
Question regarding Static Initialization Order Fiasco
All global variables (including class-level statics) are guaranteed to be initialized before main(). The order in which they are initialized between different source files is undefined.
Global Initialization Order Fiasco refers to the situation where global variables in one file are initialized with global variables from another source file, and the result depends on the initialization order. In your case, the variables are initialized with zero, so there is no "fiasco" - the program is safe.
Prevent static initialization order fiasco, C++
The modern, more pattern-oriented way is not to use globals in the first place.
There's no other way around it.
It wouldn't be much of a "fiasco", otherwise!
Related Topics
What Are Transparent Comparators
How to Make Cin Take Only Numbers
Calling Class Method Through Null Class Pointer
Undefined Reference to Static Variable C++
How to Pass a Multidimensional Array to a Function in C and C++
How to Safely Pass Objects, Especially Stl Objects, to and from a Dll
How to Remove from a Map While Iterating It
How to Sort a Std::Vector by the Values of a Different Std::Vector
Why Are #Ifndef and #Define Used in C++ Header Files
Opengl Object in C++ Raii Class No Longer Works
Initializer_List and Move Semantics
Multi-Character Constant Warnings
Cout ≪≪ Order of Call to Functions It Prints
Compilers and Argument Order of Evaluation in C++
Can a C++ Class Include Itself as an Member
When Should Std::Move Be Used on a Function Return Value
Differences Between Std::Make_Unique and Std::Unique_Ptr With New