On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 11:49:08AM +0000, Charles Forsyth wrote: > On 7 November 2014 10:57, Steffen Nurpmeso <sdao...@yandex.com> wrote: > > > Safety against asynchronous un-/registration can't be it, anyway. > > > No, there's a lock. I meant avoiding too many possible interactions between > low-level run-time > functions and the rest of the library. (I'd consider atexit and exit to be > lower-level functions than malloc.) > Since atexit is already used by profile, and is called by _profmain, which > is called very early on, > putting a call to malloc in that chain means you have to think that much > harder about interactions that are already quite subtle.
This is an interesting. With this info the array reordering in atexitdont() looks good comparing to malloc in atexit().
