From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Fri,  7 Nov 2014 11:02:02 +0300
From: Oleg <lego12239@yandex.ru>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <20141107080202.GA26070@localhost>
References: <3600f4a8554d9bc476742f16a142efcf@ladd.quanstro.net>
	<87a6b022f678167e1dca6bc8fffa6ddd@shike2.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87a6b022f678167e1dca6bc8fffa6ddd@shike2.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [9fans] atexit() & atexitdont()
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 24737796-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 08:17:55AM +0100, k0ga@shike2.com wrote:
>
> > perhaps a linked list would make sense, but atexits(2) doesn't say which order
> > the functions will be run in.  and it doesn't seem like a great idea to depend on
> > atexits running things in a particular order.
>
> POSIX says they must be called in reverse order.

plan9 isn't POSIX OS :-).