From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Fri,  7 Nov 2014 01:45:50 +0300
From: Oleg <lego12239@yandex.ru>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <20141106224550.GA25607@localhost>
References: <20141106210544.GA20298@localhost>
	<3600f4a8554d9bc476742f16a142efcf@ladd.quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3600f4a8554d9bc476742f16a142efcf@ladd.quanstro.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [9fans] atexit() & atexitdont()
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2467039e-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 04:26:04PM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> On Thu Nov  6 16:07:56 EST 2014, lego12239@yandex.ru wrote:
> >   Hi, all.
> >
> > I looked at atexit() and atexitdont() and i don't understand why these
> > functions are implemented with a static array instead of singly linked list?
> > May be somebody with a greater plan9 experience can help me with my question.
>
> perhaps a linked list would make sense, but atexits(2) doesn't say which order
> the functions will be run in.

  It say - in reverse order.

> and it doesn't seem like a great idea to depend on
> atexits running things in a particular order.

  Why? There are various situations...