Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <48781a6605051010282d72cfa9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 13:28:43 -0400
From: "William M. (Mike) Miller" <william DOT m DOT miller AT gmail DOT com>
Reply-To: "William M. (Mike) Miller" <william DOT m DOT miller AT gmail DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Static destructors not running
In-Reply-To: <20050510160904.GF15665@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <48781a66050509154660edcc78 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <SERRANONlJbSorxTjtR000002ab AT SERRANO DOT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM> <48781a6605051006066aa9b036 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20050510153512 DOT GZ15665 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <48781a66050510085450bd1339 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20050510160904 DOT GF15665 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id j4B0ZV86029635

On 5/10/05, Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin DOT com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:54:45AM -0400, William M. (Mike) Miller wrote:
> >Yes, the output does appear when I call exit instead of returning
> >from main().  Unfortunately, that's not an option.  For one thing,
> >this is shared code that works just fine on other systems (and
> >under Cygwin until I updated last Friday).  For another, the
> >semantics of calling exit in main() are not exactly the same as
> >returning from main() -- local automatic objects in main() are not
> >destroyed by the exit() call, which is something some of this
> >code that is now failing relies on.
> 
> I was trying to figure out the problem, not suggest that you should
> change all of your code.

Sorry, my misunderstanding.

> Previous to 1.5.16, static destructors were always called via a
> gcc "atexit" mechanism.  This meant that there were scenarios where
> destructors would not be called at all so I made cygwin's exit call
> the destructors explicitly.   I just forgot to make cygwin do the right
> thing when returning from main rather than exiting.  This will be
> fixed in the next snapshot.

Great!  Thanks very much.

-- 
William M. (Mike) Miller | Edison Design Group
william DOT m DOT miller AT gmail DOT com

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/