[K42-discussion] Cause of cxa_atexit/dso_handle reference

[Patrick G. Bridges]

On Aug 15, 2006, at 3:25 PM, Bryan S Rosenburg wrote:

>
>
> Patrick Bridges wrote on 08/15/2006 05:14:02 PM:
> > So, should we just break down and put together simple implemetations
> > of cxa_atexit and dso_handle, or should we further limit the  
> kinds of
> > things we do in C++ to avoid these problems (i.e., either forbid
> > destructors in certain classes or forbid global objects of certain
> > types)?
>
> I'm in favor of forbidding global objects of certain types, if we  
> can make that work.  We've tried to avoid global objects in  
> general, and the closer we can keep to that standard, the better.
>
> Patrick, thanks for looking into this issue so thoroughly.

My feeling would be to go ahead and support cxa_atexit and global  
objects since, unlike exceptions and rtti for example, it should be  
relatively straightforward. It'll also make porting easier since we  
won't have to continually hack around these problems on a case-by- 
case basis.

If we don't want to, any suggestion on how to fix this particular  
case? Can we simply allocate "theDeletedObject" at runtime by new(),  
or if not new, by casting a static buffer to the appropriate type? I  
guess part of my problem is that I don't yet understand exactly how  
it's used and integrates with the fslib stuff.