This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: dlclose not calling destructors of static variables.
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 12:46:11 -0500
- Subject: Re: dlclose not calling destructors of static variables.
- References: <4B61732F.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4B62DDE6.email@example.com> <4B62F118.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20100129184514.GA9550@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <4B66BF2F.email@example.com> <20100201162603.GB25374@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <4B6710CE.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 05:35:10PM +0000, Andrew West wrote:
>On 01/02/2010 16:26, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> Could you clarify? Are you saying that your test case still failed?
>With the change you provided my test still failed, but changing
>m.AllocationBase to m.BaseAddress it worked.
>Unfortunately it only worked for that test cash, on trying it with a
>full program of mine it crashed using both
>AllocationBase and BaseAddress to work out the start position of the dll.
>On closer examination it looks like dll_beg <-> dll_end doesn't cover
>all the possible locations that atexits are registered from.
>I think RegionSize isn't big enough at least when I compare them to gdbs
>"info sharedlibrary", for example:
>m.AllocationBase = 0x706c0000
>m.AllocationBase + m.RegionSize = 0x706c1000
>from = 0x706c1000
>to = 0x706c717c
>But the atexit function is registered at 0x706c10f0. Changing
>AllocationBase to BaseAddress worked for my test case out of pure luck,
>with my larger libraries it still failed.
>Looking at one of the libraries in my code that fails I get ( with the
>atexit at 0x78351c9 )
>m.AllocationBase = 0x7820000
>m.AllocationBase + m.RegionSize = 0x7824000
>from = 0x07821000
>to = 0x079159b8
>With both of these examples I checked the dll using objdump and the
>atexit functions where in the .text portion but RegionSize never seems
>big enough to cover it entirely. For that last dll objdump reports the
>text size as 61380. Of course I could be reading objdump wrong, I've
>only every really used it to check exported functions.
>Cribbing from the gdb source code, it looks like they use BaseAddrees +
>0x1000 for the start point and then call GetModuleInformation to workout
>the size of the module.
Yeah, duh. "they" == "me". I should have checked gdb for this since I've
already done this research once before.
If you do find that this works, then I think this may fall into the
realm of a non-trivial patch so it may be best to just tell me what
you've found rather than provide a patch - unless you want to go through
the approval process with Red Hat.
Or, you can just wait for me to adapt what's in gdb to cygwin. I can do
tonight when I get back to a windows system.
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple