On 10.12.2014 17:37, Patrick Wollgast wrote:
> Ping.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg03368.html
>
> On 27.11.2014 10:42, Patrick Wollgast wrote:
>> On 12.11.2014 19:40, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>> TerminateProcess is actually bad, as it doesn't call any of the atexit
>>> handlers. You simply nuke the process off. For cygwin this behavior
>>> is inacceptable. Why a classical abort, or a classical exit call
>>> cause for you that issues? It seems to me more related to some other
>>> thing you try to paper over by this.
>>>
>>
>> It turns out the test program made some trouble. I rewrote it to the
>> attached program (virtual_func_test_min_AW.cpp). I changed obstack.c and
>> vtv_rts.cc to the C-runtime functions. For testing I used a program just
>> containing an abort and all three tests in the attached test program.
>> The call stack, passed parameters and behavior matched at the crucial
>> parts (tested again on MinGW 32/64bit).
>>
>>>
>>>> Regarding the question, why I reimplemented mprotect, I also haven't
>>>> changed anything in the patch but answered the question.
>>>
>>> And this doesn't make it better. It is present in the static part of
>>> libgcc. Have you tried to declare it with extern "C" (for C++ case)
>>> and simply use it?
>>> Cygwin provides its own version too. So there seems to me no real
>>> need to re-implement it.
>>>
>>
>> You're right. I was stuck with the idea of importing it dynamically, but
>> changed it to extern "C" now.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Patrick
>>
