My DLL wants to close the program in which it's running

[Robert Rollins]

Hi all,
I'm writing some additions to an existing C++ DLL, and one of the
things I need to add is a generic way to close down the program in
which my DLL is running (so I can close down whatever program may have
loaded it). Can I just call exit(0)? That seems like a really
dramatic way to go about this, and I'm thinking that it might be a bad
idea. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

[red floyd]

Robert Rollins wrote:

Hi all,
I'm writing some additions to an existing C++ DLL, and one of the
things I need to add is a generic way to close down the program in
which my DLL is running (so I can close down whatever program may have
loaded it). Can I just call exit(0)? That seems like a really
dramatic way to go about this, and I'm thinking that it might be a bad
idea. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Wrong group. The C++ Standard (ISO/IEC 14882:2003) doesn't discuss
DLLs. Try a group with windows or microsoft in the name. See FAQ 5.9

http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit...t.html#faq-5.9

[Herhor]

Dnia 10-07-2007 o 07:36:21 red floyd <no*****@here.dudenapisa³(a):

Robert Rollins wrote:

>Hi all,
I'm writing some additions to an existing C++ DLL, and one of the
things I need to add is a generic way to close down the program in
which my DLL is running (so I can close down whatever program may have
loaded it). Can I just call exit(0)? That seems like a really
dramatic way to go about this, and I'm thinking that it might be a bad
idea. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Wrong group. The C++ Standard (ISO/IEC 14882:2003) doesn't discuss
DLLs. Try a group with windows or microsoft in the name. See FAQ 5.9

http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit...t.html#faq-5.9

Yes, but let's not be so orthodox like C-ircusians! ;)

[BobR]

red floyd <no*****@here.dudewrote in message...

Robert Rollins wrote:

Hi all,
I'm writing some additions to an existing C++ DLL,

[snip]

Wrong group. The C++ Standard (ISO/IEC 14882:2003) doesn't discuss
DLLs. Try a group with windows or microsoft in the name. See FAQ 5.9

http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit...t.html#faq-5.9

But Red, I thought a 'Doubly Linked List' (std::list) WAS on topic here. <G>

--
Bob R
POVrookie

[red floyd]

BobR wrote:

red floyd <no*****@here.dudewrote in message...

>Robert Rollins wrote:

>>Hi all,
I'm writing some additions to an existing C++ DLL,

[snip]

>Wrong group. The C++ Standard (ISO/IEC 14882:2003) doesn't discuss
DLLs. Try a group with windows or microsoft in the name. See FAQ 5.9

http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit...t.html#faq-5.9

But Red, I thought a 'Doubly Linked List' (std::list) WAS on topic here. <G>

From the OP:
I'm writing some additions to an existing C++ DLL, and one of the

things I need to add is a generic way to close down the program in
which my DLL is running (so I can close down whatever program may have
loaded it). Can I just call exit(0)? That seems like a really
dramatic way to go about this, and I'm thinking that it might be a bad
idea. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Where do you see "Doubly Linked List"? How to kill a process from
within a DLL is OT.

[red floyd]

BobR wrote:

>
But Red, I thought a 'Doubly Linked List' (std::list) WAS on topic here. <G>

DOH!!!!! Ignore my other reply to this. I missed the "<g>" marker :-(
Good one!

[BobR]

red floyd <no*****@here.dudewrote in message...

BobR wrote:

But Red, I thought a 'Doubly Linked List' (std::list) WAS on topic here.

<G>

DOH!!!!! Ignore my other reply to this. I missed the "<g>" marker :-(
Good one!

Imagine the confusion we could create if every time some poor guy asks about
a window$ DLL in this NG, we *wedge* in a 'std::list' answer. :-}

I started to answer the OP with something like, "no, you don't need to use
exit(), just let the instantiation go out of scope.". But.....

--
Bob R
POVrookie

[James Kanze]

On Jul 10, 2:43 am, Robert Rollins <[e-mail]:

I'm writing some additions to an existing C++ DLL, and one of the
things I need to add is a generic way to close down the program in
which my DLL is running (so I can close down whatever program may have
loaded it). Can I just call exit(0)? That seems like a really
dramatic way to go about this, and I'm thinking that it might be a bad
idea. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

There are only two standard ways to normally terminate a
process: return from main, and call exit(). (There's also
abort(), but I don't think we can consider that "normally
terminating".) Generally, it's better to avoid calling exit(),
since that means that the destructors of local variables aren't
called, but unless the main routine has provided for some other
conventions, there's not much else you can do. (In a number of
my programs, I use the convention of throwing an int; main
catch'es the int, and returns the value thrown. But this only
works because main() establishes the convention.)

BTW: you can ignore the idiots complaining about off topic.
Your question is quite appropriate here. But some people just
like to hear themselves talk, and since they can't think of
anything else...

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja*********@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, [phone]

[red floyd]

James Kanze wrote:

On Jul 10, 2:43 am, Robert Rollins <[e-mail]:

> I'm writing some additions to an existing C++ DLL, and one of the
things I need to add is a generic way to close down the program in
which my DLL is running (so I can close down whatever program may have
loaded it). Can I just call exit(0)? That seems like a really
dramatic way to go about this, and I'm thinking that it might be a bad
idea. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

[redacted]

BTW: you can ignore the idiots complaining about off topic.
Your question is quite appropriate here. But some people just
like to hear themselves talk, and since they can't think of
anything else...

No, James, I don't believe it's appropriate. Usage of exit() is
definitely on topic. But the behavior of exit() when called from a DLL
is specifically off topic.

[Kai-Uwe Bux]

red floyd wrote:

James Kanze wrote:

>On Jul 10, 2:43 am, Robert Rollins <[e-mail]:

>> I'm writing some additions to an existing C++ DLL, and one of the
things I need to add is a generic way to close down the program in
which my DLL is running (so I can close down whatever program may have
loaded it). Can I just call exit(0)? That seems like a really
dramatic way to go about this, and I'm thinking that it might be a bad
idea. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

[redacted]

BTW: you can ignore the idiots complaining about off topic.
Your question is quite appropriate here. But some people just
like to hear themselves talk, and since they can't think of
anything else...

No, James, I don't believe it's appropriate. Usage of exit() is
definitely on topic. But the behavior of exit() when called from a DLL
is specifically off topic.

I would hope that the behavior of exit() when called from within a DLL
(whatever that may be) is not any different from what the standard has to
say about the behavior of exit() when called; otherwise the implementation
would seem to be non-conforming. Therefore, I do not see, how the answer to
the question depends on the DLL-issue.

As far as I can see, the OP mentioned DLLs just to indicate that he was
prepared to hear that, from within DLLs, there are special rules. That the
standard does not provide those rules does not render the question
off-topic but just allows for a simpler answer.
Best

Kai-Uwe Bux

[red floyd]

Kai-Uwe Bux wrote:

red floyd wrote:

>James Kanze wrote:

>>On Jul 10, 2:43 am, Robert Rollins <[e-mail]:

[redacted]

>>>

No, James, I don't believe it's appropriate. Usage of exit() is
definitely on topic. But the behavior of exit() when called from a DLL
is specifically off topic.

I would hope that the behavior of exit() when called from within a DLL
(whatever that may be) is not any different from what the standard has to
say about the behavior of exit() when called; otherwise the implementation
would seem to be non-conforming. Therefore, I do not see, how the answer to
the question depends on the DLL-issue.

As far as I can see, the OP mentioned DLLs just to indicate that he was
prepared to hear that, from within DLLs, there are special rules. That the
standard does not provide those rules does not render the question
off-topic but just allows for a simpler answer.

OK, I'll concede the point. Sorry if I came off as a bit of a pig.