[K42-discussion] Cause of cxa_atexit/dso_handle reference

[Donour Sizemore]

Bryan S Rosenburg wrote:
> 
> I'm sorry for not being more responsive.  As Orran said, we're really 
> busy working toward an internal milestone for the next few weeks.
> 
> I'm still in favor of avoiding global objects on general principles, but 
> not if it involves solving too many case-by-case problems.  I think the 
> particular DeletedObject case can be solved with a dynamic allocation 
> using the "primitive" memory allocator.  I've attached a patch below. 
>  The patch compiles, but I haven't tested it, and I certainly haven't 
> verified that it avoids the cxa_atexit requirement.
> 
> If there are too many cases, or if there are cases that can't be easily 
> resolved, I'd fall back on providing a cxa_atexit() that doesn't do 
> anything.  There's really no point in recording the cleanup functions 
> when there's no code that will ever call them.
> 
> Here's the patch for dynamically allocating theDeletedObj:  
> 

I just tried this patch, but gcc still emits the __cxa_atexit symbol. I 
have a solution that adds the aforementioned empty atexit function, 
along with the necessary changes to makefiles. I'll post it shortly.

donour