X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4B62FEA0.6040700@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:28:32 +0000 From: Andrew West User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: dlclose not calling destructors of static variables. References: <4B61732F.4030804@gmail.com> <4B62DDE6.5070106@gmail.com> <4B62F118.8010305@gmail.com> <4B62FD82.8020208@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4B62FD82.8020208@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com On 29/01/2010 15:23, Dave Korn wrote: > On 29/01/2010 14:30, Andrew West wrote: > > >> 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). >> > That's not the C++ standard; that is part of the cxx-abi. Since so much of > cxx-abi assumes ELF, we implement things slightly differently on Cygwin. > > cheers, > DaveK > Ah o.k. So is there any documentation on how Cygwin should do things differently? Should atexit be used for both executables and library static destructors? Is there a reason for not using __cxa_atexit? Many thanks, Andy -- 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