On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 08:17:55AM +0100, k...@shike2.com wrote:
perhaps a linked list would make sense, but atexits(2) doesn't say which
order
the functions will be run in. and it doesn't seem like a great idea to
depend on
atexits running things in a particular order.
POSIX
On 6 November 2014 21:05, Oleg lego12...@yandex.ru wrote:
I looked at atexit() and atexitdont() and i don't understand why these
functions are implemented with a static array instead of singly linked
list?
May be somebody with a greater plan9 experience can help me with my
question.
It
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 08:19:05AM +, Charles Forsyth wrote:
On 6 November 2014 21:05, Oleg lego12...@yandex.ru wrote:
I looked at atexit() and atexitdont() and i don't understand why these
functions are implemented with a static array instead of singly linked
list?
May be somebody
On 7 November 2014 09:44, Oleg lego12...@yandex.ru wrote:
f malloc works like in linux (at first invocation allocate more bytes than
requested and then each malloc() use this already allocated by kernel area
of memory), i think this isn't a big performance impact.
I wasn't really thinking
On 7 November 2014 10:57, Steffen Nurpmeso sdao...@yandex.com wrote:
Safety against asynchronous un-/registration can't be it, anyway.
No, there's a lock. I meant avoiding too many possible interactions between
low-level run-time
functions and the rest of the library. (I'd consider atexit and
Oleg lego12...@yandex.ru wrote:
|On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 08:19:05AM +, Charles Forsyth wrote:
| On 6 November 2014 21:05, Oleg lego12...@yandex.ru wrote:
|
| I looked at atexit() and atexitdont() and i don't understand why these
| functions are implemented with a static array instead of
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 11:49:08AM +, Charles Forsyth wrote:
On 7 November 2014 10:57, Steffen Nurpmeso sdao...@yandex.com wrote:
Safety against asynchronous un-/registration can't be it, anyway.
No, there's a lock. I meant avoiding too many possible interactions between
low-level
Not for atexit, but for some other functions, I've had to follow various
trails in glibc,
and it's just an intricate convoluted nightmare, so that probably colours
my view.
How can i send a patch to 9front?
You can file an issue and link to your patch here:
http://code.google.com/p/plan9front/issues/list
Or you can sign up for the 9front mailing list and post there:
http://9front.org/lists.html
sl
On Fri Nov 7 07:26:55 EST 2014, charles.fors...@gmail.com wrote:
Not for atexit, but for some other functions, I've had to follow various
trails in glibc,
and it's just an intricate convoluted nightmare, so that probably colours
my view.
calling malloc from the atexit path will pull
Charles Forsyth charles.fors...@gmail.com wrote:
|On 7 November 2014 10:57, Steffen Nurpmeso sdao...@yandex.com wrote:
|
| Safety against asynchronous un-/registration can't be it, anyway.
|
|No, there's a lock. I meant avoiding too many possible interactions between
I thought more about
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 02:53:11PM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
On Fri Nov 7 07:26:55 EST 2014, charles.fors...@gmail.com wrote:
Not for atexit, but for some other functions, I've had to follow various
trails in glibc,
and it's just an intricate convoluted nightmare, so that probably
Hi, all.
I looked at atexit() and atexitdont() and i don't understand why these
functions are implemented with a static array instead of singly linked list?
May be somebody with a greater plan9 experience can help me with my question.
If i do:
#include u.h
#include libc.h
void f1(void)
{
On Thu Nov 6 16:07:56 EST 2014, lego12...@yandex.ru wrote:
Hi, all.
I looked at atexit() and atexitdont() and i don't understand why these
functions are implemented with a static array instead of singly linked list?
May be somebody with a greater plan9 experience can help me with my
according to the man page:
Before calling _exits with msg as an argument, exits calls in reverse
order all the functions recorded by atexit.
so i think your result should be f2, f1, f1.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 1:26 PM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net
wrote:
On Thu Nov 6 16:07:56 EST
i'm wondering if print is the right instrument for knowing the order is
right.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Skip Tavakkolian skip.tavakkol...@gmail.com
wrote:
according to the man page:
Before calling _exits with msg as an argument, exits calls in reverse
order all the functions recorded
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 04:26:04PM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
On Thu Nov 6 16:07:56 EST 2014, lego12...@yandex.ru wrote:
Hi, all.
I looked at atexit() and atexitdont() and i don't understand why these
functions are implemented with a static array instead of singly linked list?
May
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 01:44:30PM -0800, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
i'm wondering if print is the right instrument for knowing the order is
right.
You are right, but in this case it's irrelevant. The atexit.c source code
is pretty disambiguous.
perhaps a linked list would make sense, but atexits(2) doesn't say which order
the functions will be run in. and it doesn't seem like a great idea to
depend on
atexits running things in a particular order.
POSIX says they must be called in reverse order.
19 matches
Mail list logo
