X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<4B673D5F.4050104@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:45:19 +0000
From:	Andrew <andrewwest AT gmail DOT com>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8pre) Gecko/20100131 Shredder/3.0.2pre
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: dlclose not calling destructors of static variables.
References:	<4B61732F DOT 4030804 AT gmail DOT com> <4B62DDE6 DOT 5070106 AT gmail DOT com> <4B62F118 DOT 8010305 AT gmail DOT com> <20100129184514 DOT GA9550 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4B66BF2F DOT 4060802 AT gmail DOT com> <20100201162603 DOT GB25374 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4B6710CE DOT 40300 AT gmail DOT com> <20100201174611 DOT GA26080 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <20100201175123 DOT GB26080 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4B672B74 DOT 4090808 AT gmail DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<4B672B74.4090808@gmail.com>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On 01/02/10 19:28, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 01/02/2010 17:51, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>    
>> On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 12:46:11PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>      
>    
>>>> 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.
>>>        
>> Btw, it isn't entirely clear that GetModuleInformation will work with
>> older versions of Windows NT so this may not be a complete solution.  We
>> do use GetModuleInformation in Cygwin but it is not in anything as
>> crucial as this.
>>      
>    Can't we use the info in the dll struct?  It has pointers to the data and
> bss section, we could take the max out of them and the data in the M_B_I
> struct.  (Tell you what, I'll try it.)
>
>    

That would be the ideal solution.

I'm not looking to submit a patch to fix this, I'll leave that up to the 
professionals
who have a better idea about the whole picture. It's just I've hit a 
brick wall with
my code with this bug so I'm looking for some work arounds for myself.

I'm going to poke around the "remove_dll_atexit" function again tomorrow.
gdb used bfd_* functions from binutils so that's out for me, 
VirtualQuery seems
wrong for purpose and GetModuleInformation keeps giving me a invalid 
handle error.
Iterating over the dll list and using the per_module information seems 
like my best bet,
and hopefully should be quite simple I think.

Andy.

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -