--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-13 19:40
---
Mine.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |bkoz at gcc dot
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-12 19:03
---
*** Bug 19265 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-12
04:49 ---
Subject: Bug 22309
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-12 04:49:11
Modified files:
libstdc++-v3 : ChangeLog
--- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-09 08:26
---
Without init_priority, how can you be sure that other libstdc++.so destructors
will not be run after __gnu_internal::freelist is destructed?
If there are some destructors and they use the mt allocator
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-09 09:19
---
Hey Jakub. Yeah, I think this can be back-ported. I put in my patch, which looks
pretty good on x86/linux. We could proably do something more elaborate to not
duplicate some of the symbols but I'm feeling
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-09 18:21
---
Well, maybe we will need init priority. I'm still thinking about that part.
Adding it is simple enough if we need it.
However, I'd like to check this in just to see what happens with the rest of it.
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-01 21:02
---
Jakub, any idea how to add a test case for this thing? Ugh.
I cannot figure it out.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22309
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-26 17:42
---
Jakub, sorry, having connectivity issues since yesterday. Can you put your most
recent patch and commentary in this bug report? Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22309
--- Additional Comments From jakub at redhat dot com 2005-07-14 12:46
---
First patch posted here
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg00478.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22309
--- Additional Comments From jakub at redhat dot com 2005-07-14 12:48
---
That patch fixes the original testcase, but unfortunately does not fix
the following one.
cat P.c EOF
#include dlfcn.h
#include pthread.h
void *
tf (void *arg)
{
void *h = dlopen (./libP.so, RTLD_LAZY);
void
--- Additional Comments From jakub at redhat dot com 2005-07-14 13:37
---
Another patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg00993.html
To test whether _M_get_thread_id/_M_initialize/_M_destroy_thread_key works
I was using following testcase under debugger:
#include
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-05 16:27
---
Jakub, is this issue related to libstdc++/19265?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22309
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||pcarlini at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22309
--- Additional Comments From jakub at redhat dot com 2005-07-05 16:48
---
Yes, that's the same thing apparently.
I'm pretty sure a reproducer can be written even for libstdc++ not configured
to default to the mt allocator, by including ext/mt_allocator.h etc. or
however you explicitely
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-05 16:55
---
Yes, that's the same thing apparently.
Thanks. And now we have also a compact testcase.
I'm pretty sure a reproducer can be written even for libstdc++ not configured
to default to the mt allocator, by
16 matches
Mail list logo
