Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!vsi1!altnet!uunet!super!rminnich
From: rminnich@super.ORG (Ronald G Minnich)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Negative Open Counts (was Re: IEEE libraries)
Keywords: open counts
Message-ID: <729@super.ORG>
Date: 13 Sep 88 12:27:48 GMT
References: <1356@percival.UUCP> <b03Kac9bnd10108qAIk@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <358@boing.UUCP> <1570@sbcs.sunysb.edu> <362@boing.UUCP> <39822@linus.UUCP>
Sender: uucp@super.ORG
Reply-To: rminnich@metropolis.UUCP (Ronald G Minnich)
Distribution: na
Organization: Supercomputing Research Center, Lanham, MD
Lines: 14

In article <39822@linus.UUCP> eachus@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
>     decrement  the count by one.  Libraries may only be unloaded
>     when the count is zero.
>     Simple and sweet.  I like the idea  of ratcheting the count down,
One good reason to let the count go less than -1 is debugging. 
i.e. you are looking with amon, and see a library with -1 count. 
Who did it? If it always stays at -1 you don't know. If you run something
and see it go to -3 you have your culprit. 
   Only potential problem is the count could wrap to positive 
numbers after the 16384-th bogus double-close :-)
(or is that 1,000,000,000 bogus double close ??:-)
   Either way, a real nice way to handle it. No gurus, you pay a little
memory, which is a good tradeoff...
ron