Bug 28625

Created attachment 10640 [details]
tar of 3 .cpp files & a script_both to demonstrate problem

atexit semantics cannot be changed.
Have a look at __cxa_atexit and __cxa_finalize functions though, they are
exactly what you're looking on.
g++ even uses them instead of atexit if you pass it -fuse-cxa-atexit option.

Your answer may be technically correct, but is tantalisingly useless, because:
- "info glibc" has no reference to __cxa_atexit. 
- in /usr/include, "grep -r _atexit *" just finds g_atexit. 
- "info g++", "man g++" have no reference to -fuse-cxa-atexit option, 
although ... 
- "g++ -v --help" mentions it to use __cxa_atexit to register destructors; this 
is not quite what I had in mind. 
- I do not wish to code an atexit in a dlopen-ed module, but I have ported 
applications that crash because atexit is are compiled into modules like 
libdb2.so - ready-made and no source to hand. I have tried to use "ld --wrap 
atexit"; ironically, this works for non-dynamic loading (when it isn't needed), 
but is ignored for dlopen-ed modules (when it's needed).

Also, your "atexit semantics cannot be changed" is misleading, and indicates a 
lack of understanding on how standards evolve. 

To summarise, I am unable to use ANY of the information you have given to me. 
I'm sorry that I am so ignorant about Linux, but I need to know how I may turn 
your statements into something useful, as the avenues I usually use fail to 
corroborate your comments. Indeed, it appears to me that someone has chosen a 
rather inelegant solution to an obvious problem, and hidden it away. 

Is there someone else more experienced that I could get in touch with? Although 
somewhat inexperienced with Linux, I have a wealth of experience writing 
compilers, run-time linkers and operating systems drivers, as well as the more 
mundane applications stuff.

Note that my email address is about to change to bryan_e_white (from 
2001/03/01)

XYZZY? PLUGH? What magic word must I utter, what hurdles must I jump in order 
to make contact with someone who knows what they're talking about? This is very 
frustrating. 
Having looked at the __cxa_atexit interface, I have some ideas that may (or may 
not!) be feasible to resolve the atexit/DSO issue, that I could discuss with 
someone who understands loader routines.
Incidentally, Ulrich Drepper has contacted me re gnats libc/2092, but his 
comments also show me that he too has failed to grasp the differences between a 
compiler, linker and loader, and so what libc is about. I've also discovered 
that he is responsible for maintaining libc! 
I have found further information which confirms to me that the earlier answer 
you gave was wrong; I'll quote two of them here:
A)
There is an interesting comment at 
http://reality.sgi.com/dehnert_engr/cxx/abi.html (C++ ABI for IA-64 (Draft) 
Revised 17 November 2000), section 3.3.5.3-B, last sentence: "No user interface 
to __cxa_atexit is supported, so the user is not able to register an atexit 
function with a parameter or a home DSO." 
B)
Also, at http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/FAQ.html , 3.12 states "ISO C states 
that identifiers beginning with an underscore are internal to the libc. An 
application program normally shouldn't use those internal interfaces (there are 
exceptions, e.g. __ivaliduser). If a program uses these interfaces, it's 
broken. These internal interfaces might change between glibc releases or 
dropped completely"
Is __cxa_atexit an exception also?

Ulrich Drepper actually changed atexit semantics and it is pending review
by the standard comittees. The next atexit is present in glibc-2.2.2-7 in rawhide.