Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
From: "Sander Striker" <striker@apache.org>
To: <dev@apr.apache.org>
Subject: Cleanup ordering, WAS: RE: cvs commit: apr/include apr_pools.h
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:42:43 +0100
Message-ID: <JLEGKKNELMHCJPNMOKHOEEFIIOAA.striker@apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <3E6F9130.2060407@algroup.co.uk>
Importance: Normal

> From: Ben Laurie [mailto:ben@algroup.co.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:58 PM

[...]
> ISTR Ben Hyde ranting to me about how this isn't strictly true... in 
> particular, if you do this:
> 
> 1. Register cleanup 1 in pool A
> 2. Make subpool B in A
> 3. Register cleanup 2 in B
> 4. Register cleanup 3 in A
> 5. Register cleanup 4 in B
> 
> then destroy A, the order of cleanups is 3,4,2,1.

??

No, the order is 4,2 3,1.

When A gets destroyed the following happens:

  A destroys subpools (B)
      B gets destroyed
        destroys subpools(none)
        runs cleanups (4,2)
    runs cleanus (3,1)

> It seems to me it would be good to fix this.

It doesn't seem broken to me.

Sander