> On 2011-07-01 11:44:51, Steve Huston wrote: > > My concern with DllMain is that it precludes building qpid as static > > libraries (and having this logic still work).
Good point. I was so focused on the bug as presented I lost complete sight of this valid use case. I suppose I could do away with locks and maps altogether with use of TLS storage. In this case the only leaked resource would be the TLS slot on multiple uses of LoadLibrary/FreeLibrary, which is obviously not relevant in the static build case. So I should be able to use logic to free the slot in DllMain and comment out that code in a static build. Does this seem reasonable? - Cliff ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/987/#review947 ----------------------------------------------------------- On 2011-07-01 03:08:08, Cliff Jansen wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/987/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated 2011-07-01 03:08:08) > > > Review request for qpid. > > > Summary > ------- > > This is the same logic as the preceding version with naming fixes and > refinements to DLL cleanup. > > Cleanup now uses Windows DllMain function to allows cleanup after C++ runtime > static destructors. > > > This addresses bug qpid-3256. > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/qpid-3256 > > > Diffs > ----- > > /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/sys/windows/Thread.cpp 1141687 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/987/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > Qpid cmake run_tests > > > Thanks, > > Cliff > >
