| To: | Anoop <acv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Fwd: Re: whether ext() and atexit() are safe w.r.t each other |
| From: | Ulrich Drepper <drepper@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:10:20 -0700 |
| Cc: | David Butenhof <david.butenhof@xxxxxx>, Geoff Clare <gwc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "austin-group-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <austin-group-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | Red Hat, Inc. |
| References: | <1212759114.12557.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080606154514.GB39160@finch-staff-1.thus.net> <48496905.2050606@hp.com> <20080609075139.GC74480@finch-staff-1.thus.net> <20080609085814.GA23187@squonk.masqnet> <484CFFA2.6000701@hp.com> <484E2D05.9020008@linux.vnet.ibm.com> |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Anoop wrote: > All successfully registered handlers are invoked before exiting, or in > other words, > Fail all the registrations that cannot be handled. Is that correct? No. It is perfectly reasonable to have an implementation which takes a copy of the atexit handlers when the exit() function is entered and then work on that copy. New additions won't be seen. There is no reason to give programmers with questionable (at best) code reason to demand that implementations are more complex than they are already. - -- ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkhOi0wACgkQ2ijCOnn/RHS/mACfe7HJjI1dNxPkcpdlOmIMiIW/ HVMAoJ4btdwC5QEB8LI+76hqdfgYeYsZ =jHxW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Fwd: Re: whether ext() and atexit() are safe w.r.t each other, David Butenhof |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: wait* status definition, Ulrich Drepper |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Fwd: Re: whether ext() and atexit() are safe w.r.t each other, David Butenhof |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Fwd: Re: whether ext() and atexit() are safe w.r.t each other, Nick Stoughton |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [All Lists] |