This is the mail archive of the newlib@sourceware.org mailing list for the newlib project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 05/28/2013 06:28 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On May 28 18:12, Ye Joey wrote:On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Sebastian Huber <sebastian.huber@embedded-brains.de> wrote:Hello, why can't you use _exit() or _Exit()? http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/exit.htmlSebastian, Corinna, This patch makes calls to expensive clean up functions as weak reference, so one can still keep original functionality by explicitly pull-in symbols. Comparing to simply skipping them to _exit or _Exit, this approach is more flexible and testing friendly. In another word, user can still get a full functional libc even if it is built with --enable-lite-exit. Please let me know if you still have concerns.I don't know. I guess I defer the decision to Jeff. Corinna
Sorry I have been busy with an up-coming Eclipse release and two customer presentations.
Looking at it, this needs documentation as it is not straight-forward with regards to how the whole design ties together (i.e. what are the behaviour rules for the application / compiler). You might also state what this accomplishes on your initial platform.
AFAICT, if a call is made to __cxa_atexit, nothing will occur unless a call is also made to __cxa_finalize or atexit() or on_exit(). The exit list won't be run on exit if just on_exit() is called because __call_exitprocs() won't be brought in.
-- Jeff J.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |