X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type;
	bh=6F5oM1BcorLHK/aShPlEkWXH5UBWdoHgOj076du3+04=;
	b=k5PrAq70ptrgQwyRStdp6JHCFGBNG7hG0+ODky31dv0VIswxX91/kxhFIoHYVOE2f8
	N/gCp644Nzhj0bureyi1Qo2quynfHM6CN0lxSUL9V6VahbFkKmfIzmYF7/AfO+xg5KIV
	Y18Cz7m7tXZ9sHcuX/HuE0Hhs3tBXWY02LOcgdFc/QhohKz3q+Icy/mc4nqIjbOmTm+M
	g+lzgwhT1w+m0x1Z/eLweIuxoJOJlyA2JxoyYZ1MgP1Jk340ARZfx6PCbeGUGfXxZ5Wo
	c6we/D/7lkULyAdAALxSBRsrCljRPg5hClkzDfxNPBfGIJRr0jute/u5Z3EZRvqwS3m3
	by2g==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.107.9.222 with SMTP id 91mr8487652ioj.107.1443203137863;
	Fri, 25 Sep 2015 10:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<CAA2C=vDDN8UqGpbAzkba19Syq-1mLsBPAuSzSPWue_S2TYf_XQ@mail.gmail.com>
References:	<CAA2C=vAwcH9pHN63=Mskr9L016yAAJ6KkMPeuO9o_2cV7Pd0Kw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAA2C=vDDN8UqGpbAzkba19Syq-1mLsBPAuSzSPWue_S2TYf_XQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Date:	Fri, 25 Sep 2015 10:45:37 -0700
Message-ID:	<CAB9Rao8UtSRU-+1gpGOaqXqnDKGo6bQ3o4Riua9hwDWH7hHwMA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: dlclose not removing dependency dxes
From:	"Louis Santillan (lpsantil AT gmail DOT com) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
To:	"djgpp AT delorie DOT com" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

In your example, is a.dxe opening b.dxe?  Is dlopen figuring that out
on its own then loading b.dxe?

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Ozkan Sezer (sezeroz AT gmail DOT com) [via
djgpp AT delorie DOT com] <djgpp AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> On 9/25/15, Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
>> AFAICS, dlclose()ing of a dxe doesn't remove its dependency dxes along
>> with it, which will result in unnecessarily occupied memory which may
>> prove fatal upon multiple dlopen()/dlclose() of a dxe with deps.  This
>> needs addressing.
>>
>
> My last argument was inaccurate and misleading. Here's better:
>
> One has a.dxe and b.dxe; a.dxe depends on b.dxe.  Do dlopen a.dxe
> and b.dxe is opened implicitly.  Do dlcose a.dxe, and b.dxe stays
> open still occupying its memory.  The memory occupied by the unused
> b.dxe might be needed by the app but will be unavailable to it.
> Further dlopen calls for a.dxe will increment the refcount for b.dxe
> which never gets decremented.

- Raw text -