问题描述
如果我在最后一个程序中不使用sem_destroy，它可能会带来什么影响?会发生一些严重的问题吗?
它是特定于操作系统的.在Linux上，阅读 sem_overview(7)；实际上，您处于未指定的情况.但是，文档说
因此，您应在适当的时候致电sem_destroy ；不必冒全系统资源泄漏的风险. sem_destroy(3)的BTW文档告诉:
对于命名的信号灯，情况有所不同(它们位于/dev/shm/中).我猜想线程共享的信号量在删除其内存段时可能会被破坏(任何进程都不再映射).我不确定这是实现特定的行为，所以不要依赖于此.
还使用 proc(5).
>所以可能发生的是整个系统范围内的 资源泄漏，您不想要它.您可能需要重新启动才能将其删除.顺便说一句，您可以使用 strace(1)来找出实际的系统调用，您可以查看GNU glibc (或其他一些代码)的源代码libc，例如 musl-libc )-也许是Linux内核-可以了解更多有关实现特定行为的信息. /p>
避免未定义的行为 .
If I do not use sem_destroy at the last of my programs, what implications it may cause? Can some serious problems occur?
It is operating system specific. On Linux, read sem_overview(7); actually you are in an unspecified case. However, the documentation says
so you should call sem_destroy when appropriate; don't risk having a system-wide resource leak. BTW documentation of sem_destroy(3) tells:
For named semaphores, things are different (they sit in /dev/shm/). I guess that a thread-shared semaphore might be destroyed when its memory segment is removed (no more mapped by any process). I am not sure of this and it is implementation specific behavior, so don't rely on this.
Use also proc(5).
So what may happen is a system-wide resource leak and you don't want it. You might need to reboot to remove it. BTW, you could use strace(1) to find out the actual syscalls involved, and you could look into the source code of your GNU glibc (or some other libc, like musl-libc) - and perhaps of the Linux kernel- to understand more the implementation specific behavior.
Avoid undefined behavior.
这篇关于如果我不销毁信号灯，会发生什么?的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持！