Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 5 Feb 2003 01:42:29 +0600
From:      Max Khon <fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru>
To:        Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com>
Cc:        arch@freebsd.org, Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>, Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira <lioux@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: dlclose() vs. atexit()
Message-ID:  <20030205014229.A62172@iclub.nsu.ru>
In-Reply-To: <200302041046.13767.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com>; from mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com on Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:46:13AM -0500
References:  <200302030506.h1356Nha011918@repoman.freebsd.org> <1044319099.358.57.camel@zaphod.softweyr.com> <20030204082625.GB85104@elvis.mu.org> <200302041046.13767.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
hi, there!

> Yet another plan would be to have the atexit() call simply increase the
> ref-count of the library a handler is from, so it will not actually be
> unloaded by dlclose(). But that will be yet another implementation...

this will break applications which want to reload some
of the dlopen'ed modules

/fjoe


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030205014229.A62172>