在 2020/10/8 22:56, Jason Merrill 写道: > On 10/7/20 10:52 PM, Liu Hao via Gcc-patches wrote: >> [Please CC me as I am not subscribed to this list.] > > Hmm, why isn't the mingw implementation used for all programs? That would > avoid the bug. >
I am afraid the libstdc++ implementation has to be kept for compatibility, as
the mingw-w64 one was only added two years
ago. Neither am I clear about MinGW.org.
>
> This patch is a good start but won't actually fix the bug: the calling
> convention only makes a difference when we actually
> call the function, at the line
>
> e->destructor (e->object);
>
> in atexit_thread.cc, and your patch doesn't change the calling convention for
> elt::destructor.
>
> I'd think we should add the attribute to __cxa_cdtor_type, and use it more
> consistently for __cxa_*atexit and __cxa_throw.
>
This patch contains a hunk
```diff
@@ -52,7 +57,7 @@ namespace {
// One element in a singly-linked stack of cleanups.
struct elt
{
- void (*destructor)(void *);
+ void (_GLIBCXX_CDTOR_CALLABI *destructor)(void *);
void *object;
elt *next;
#ifdef _GLIBCXX_THREAD_ATEXIT_WIN32
```
which should suffice. I am not against introduction of another macro for this
calling convention thing, as the name
`__cxa_thread_atexit()` doesn't suggest its first argument is a non-static
member function. (Technically I think it should
not be, so GCC's use of it to register the destructor looks like a bug. The
call should go through a thunk.)
--
Best regards,
LH_Mouse
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
