On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 03:37:24PM +0200, Benjamin Riefenstahl wrote: >"Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > If we just avoid setting up the destructor calls using atexit >> > then the destructors will only run once. So, in the normal >> > case, the destructor will run after much cleanup has occurred >> > in the cygwin DLL (specifically in the do_exit function). >> > This means that the destructor may not be able to use all of >> > the facilities of cygwin when it is finally executed. >> >> Yup. That is why I don't think that the atexit call is obsolete. >> >> > This won't be an issue for the problem below, but I wonder if >> > it is a problem for other destructors. I'm not sure what >> > kind of environment a global destructor is guaranteed to have >> > but I suspect that it should be a completely normal environment. >> > >> > Anyone know for sure? Is there an online reference for this >> > kind of thing? >> >> It'll be in the C++ standard, which is proprietary :[. Anyone here have >> the standard and care to check for us? > >C++ 98 in one spot (3.6.3 Termination, para 3) says that atexit() >functions are called before destructors for objects created before >registration of the atexit() functions and after destruction of >objects created after registration. IOW the order is as if destructor >calls are implemented as atexit() functions. > >Later in the description of exit() (18.3 Start and Termination, para >8) this is repeated. Actions of exit() are defined to be in this >order: > >- atexit() functions and destructor calls. > >- Flushing C streams. > >- Return to OS with exit code. > >Except for the addition of destructor calls, this is the same >definition as in the C standard, judging from my copy of the last C9x >draft.
I never thanked you for providing this information. THANK YOU. I finally got around to fixing this problem tonight. I wanted to get it into 1.3.11. It should be in the next snapshot. Although I didn't use the method in the patch, I do appreciate the amount of work that went into tracking down the problem. I think that my fix will be a little less intrusive but it would have taken me very much longer to figure out what was going on without the use of the patch. Thanks, cgf
