[uClibc]Re: `exit' crashes trying to call through a 0 valued __uClibc_cleanup

[Erik Andersen]

On Mon Feb 18, 2002 at 06:07:27PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Erik Andersen <andersen at codepoet.org> writes:
> > I just did a quick audit of the other __stdio_close_all and
> > __uClibc_cleanup calls and they all look fine to me.  So it looks like
> > it was just this one.
> 
> Is it necessary to call __stdio_close_all from __exit_handler?

This is really a badly named function...  It should be named
__stdio_flush_buffers since it just calls fflush(NULL) to flush
out any pending buffered IO.  It really is best to call this...

> It seems like it will always be called twice, currently -- once from
> __exit_handler (directly), and once more in exit (via __uClibc_cleanup).

I agree.  The __exit_handler entries are clearly wrong.  They
don't hurt anything, but they are redundant.

> -Miles
> 
> p.s. Are you really in Utah?  You're the only U.S.-based developer I
> interact with that always replies to email the same day I send it (I'm like
> 8 time-zones away); you must do all your hacking in the wee hours...

Yup, right here at the center of the Winter Olympics. :) 
I find there are lots less distractions when I hack in
the wee hours...

 -Erik

--
Erik B. Andersen             http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--