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
