Mail Archives: cygwin/2010/01/29/13:54:00
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 02:30:48PM +0000, Andrew West wrote:
>On 29/01/2010 13:08, Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 28/01/2010 11:21, Andrew West wrote:
>>>I seem to be having a problem with dlclose not calling the destructors
>>>of statically declared variables. I've attached a simple test case
>>>which I compile as follows;
>>>
>>Thanks for the report and the STC; this should work. I'll take a look
>>at it over the weekend or the start of next week if nobody else gets
>>there first.
>>
>Thanks for looking into this, it looks a little more complex than I
>first thought.
>
>I've tried calling __call_exitprocs during dlclose ( after run_dtors
>for the unloading library ) just to see if I was thinking along the
>right lines. Unfortunately this didn't work as when the destructor is
>registered with atexit it isn't associated with the loaded library but
>with the main executable.
>
>Which brings me on to the bigger problem, the static variables are
>registered with atexit rather than with __cxa_atexit which seems to be
>a violation of the C++ standard (1).
>
>Worse still gcc isn't compiled with cxa_atexit enabled. So I assume
>the right course of action here is to enable __cxa_atexit in gcc, and
>then make sure __cxa_finalize gets called when the library is unloaded?
I agree with your assessment here. I've checked in a change which works
around the problem you've uncovered but it is not foolproof. It should
fix the immediate problem but, in the long run, I agree that gcc should
be emitting code which calls __cxa_atexit. Of course I have no idea
what the other ramifications of doing that might be. Hopefully Dave can
enlighten us.
This is in today's snapshot at http://cygwin.com/snapshots/ .
cgf
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -