[K42-discussion] Cause of cxa_atexit/dso_handle reference

[Patrick G. Bridges]

No thoughts on this?

-Patrick

On Aug 16, 2006, at 12:17 PM, Patrick G. Bridges wrote:

>
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> K42-discussion mailing list
> K42-discussion at ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/k42-discussion