Use musl version of exit handling code - #14479
Open
sbc100 wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
Conversation
sbc100
force-pushed
the
use_musl_exit_part2
branch
from
June 18, 2021 04:27
3aee855 to
c7feb69
Compare
|
If you're fixing this, maybe this is a good moment for #12219 |
Followup to #14464, we now use atexit and exit and other functions from musl.
sbc100
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 7, 2022
To achieve this we manage the `atexit` functions in native code using existing musl code. This is small step towards a large change to just use musl for all `atexit` handling: #14479. The codesize implications of this change are a mixed bag. In some places we see saving but in other cases the extra export causes a small regression (only when EXIT_RUNTIME=1). In the long, once we land #14479 there should be more code size saving to be had by doing everything on the native side. Fixes #15868
sbc100
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 7, 2022
To achieve this we manage the `atexit` functions in native code using existing musl code. This is small step towards a large change to just use musl for all `atexit` handling: #14479. The codesize implications of this change are a mixed bag. In some places we see saving but in other cases the extra export causes a small regression (only when EXIT_RUNTIME=1). In the long, once we land #14479 there should be more code size saving to be had by doing everything on the native side. Fixes #15868
sbc100
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 7, 2022
To achieve this we manage the `atexit` functions in native code using existing musl code. This is small step towards a large change to just use musl for all `atexit` handling: #14479. The codesize implications of this change are a mixed bag. In some places we see saving but in other cases the extra export causes a small regression (only when EXIT_RUNTIME=1). In the long, once we land #14479 there should be more code size saving to be had by doing everything on the native side. Fixes #15868
sbc100
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 7, 2022
To achieve this we manage the `atexit` functions in native code using existing musl code. This is small step towards a large change to just use musl for all `atexit` handling: #14479. The codesize implications of this change are a mixed bag. In some places we see saving but in other cases the extra export causes a small regression (only when EXIT_RUNTIME=1). In the long, once we land #14479 there should be more code size saving to be had by doing everything on the native side. Fixes #15868
sbc100
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 7, 2022
To achieve this we manage the `atexit` functions in native code using existing musl code. This is small step towards a large change to just use musl for all `atexit` handling: #14479. The codesize implications of this change are a mixed bag. In some places we see saving but in other cases the extra export causes a small regression (only when EXIT_RUNTIME=1). In the long, once we land #14479 there should be more code size saving to be had by doing everything on the native side. Fixes #15868
sbc100
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 7, 2022
To achieve this we manage the `atexit` functions in native code using existing musl code. This is small step towards a large change to just use musl for all `atexit` handling: #14479. The codesize implications of this change are a mixed bag. In some places we see saving but in other cases the extra export causes a small regression (only when EXIT_RUNTIME=1). In the long, once we land #14479 there should be more code size saving to be had by doing everything on the native side. Fixes #15868
sbc100
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 7, 2022
To achieve this we manage the `atexit` functions in native code using existing musl code. This is small step towards a large change to just use musl for all `atexit` handling: #14479. The codesize implications of this change are a mixed bag. In some places we see saving but in other cases the extra export causes a small regression (only when EXIT_RUNTIME=1). In the long, once we land #14479 there should be more code size saving to be had by doing everything on the native side. Fixes #15868
sbc100
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 7, 2022
To achieve this we manage the `atexit` functions in native code using existing musl code. This is small step towards a large change to just use musl for all `atexit` handling: #14479. The codesize implications of this change are a mixed bag. In some places we see saving but in other cases the extra export causes a small regression (only when EXIT_RUNTIME=1). In the long, once we land #14479 there should be more code size saving to be had by doing everything on the native side. Fixes #15868
sbc100
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 7, 2022
To achieve this we manage the `atexit` functions in native code using existing musl code. This is small step towards a large change to just use musl for all `atexit` handling: #14479. The codesize implications of this change are a mixed bag. In some places we see saving but in other cases the extra export causes a small regression (only when EXIT_RUNTIME=1). In the long, once we land #14479 there should be more code size saving to be had by doing everything on the native side. Fixes #15868
sbc100
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 7, 2022
To achieve this we manage the `atexit` functions in native code using existing musl code. This is small step towards a large change to just use musl for all `atexit` handling: #14479. The codesize implications of this change are a mixed bag. In some places we see saving but in other cases the extra export causes a small regression (only when EXIT_RUNTIME=1). In the long, once we land #14479 there should be more code size saving to be had by doing everything on the native side. Fixes #15868
sbc100
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 7, 2022
To achieve this we manage the `atexit` functions in native code using existing musl code. This is small step towards a large change to just use musl for all `atexit` handling: #14479. The codesize implications of this change are a mixed bag. In some places we see saving but in other cases the extra export causes a small regression (only when EXIT_RUNTIME=1). In the long, once we land #14479 there should be more code size saving to be had by doing everything on the native side. Fixes #15868
sbc100
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 7, 2022
To achieve this we manage the `atexit` functions in native code using existing musl code. This is small step towards a large change to just use musl for all `atexit` handling: #14479. The codesize implications of this change are a mixed bag. In some places we see saving but in other cases the extra export causes a small regression (only when EXIT_RUNTIME=1). In the long, once we land #14479 there should be more code size saving to be had by doing everything on the native side. Fixes #15868
sbc100
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 7, 2022
To achieve this we manage the `atexit` functions in native code using existing musl code. This is small step towards a large change to just use musl for all `atexit` handling: #14479. The codesize implications of this change are a mixed bag. In some places we see saving but in other cases the extra export causes a small regression (only when EXIT_RUNTIME=1). In the long, once we land #14479 there should be more code size saving to be had by doing everything on the native side. Fixes #15868
|
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because there has been no activity in the past year. It will be closed automatically if no further activity occurs in the next 30 days. Feel free to re-open at any time if this issue is still relevant. |
|
@sbc100 bump? |
sbc100
force-pushed
the
use_musl_exit_part2
branch
from
August 12, 2022 01:49
c7feb69 to
959491b
Compare
Collaborator
Author
|
IIRC I ran into some tricky issues with this. Keeping it open in case I ever get time to revisit |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Followup to #14464, we now use atexit and exit
and other functions from musl.