https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108288
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.5|11.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108288
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Francois Dumont :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5c9833d878602de20043a5b74e4c6acd33d5fb3e
commit r13-5180-g5c9833d878602de20043a5b74e4c6acd33d5fb3e
Author: François Dumont
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108288
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.5
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108288
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b9479ddc7a28fb672ca67304a67d66524d8200a4
commit r13-5044-gb9479ddc7a28fb672ca67304a67d66524d8200a4
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108288
--- Comment #8 from Simon Marchi ---
I tested with just patching my /usr/include, and it looks like it works fine,
I'm able to run a program under my GDB. Removing the fix, I get back the hang.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108288
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
__gnu_debug::_Safe_iterator_base::_M_detach in debug.cc isn't affected by the
patch though.
The fix is to the post-inc and post-dec members, so only the code that calls
those needs to be recompiled.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108288
--- Comment #6 from Simon Marchi ---
Because some code trying to acquire the lock (see frame #7 in my backtrace) is
in debug.cc, I thought it would maybe need to be changed too? But I don't
really understand any of this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108288
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The patch doesn't change libstdc++.so, it only changes the headers.
You don't even need to rebuild GCC. You could just put a patched copy of
safe_iterator.h in /tmp/x/debug and then compile with -I/tmp/x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108288
--- Comment #4 from Simon Marchi ---
Thanks for looking into this so quickly. I'll try to test the patch against my
use case, but I might need some guidance. I know how to build gcc and install
it in some non-default prefix. But then, do I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108288
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This was my reproducer, although it doesn't deadlock without the hack to use a
single mutex for all objects.
#define _GLIBCXX_DEBUG 1
#include
int main()
{
std::vector v{1,2,3};
auto i = v.begin();
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108288
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108288
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I've tried to reproduce this, but it depends on the addresses of the
_Safe_iterator objects that get created, because they'll use different mutexes
unless their addresses collide in the hash function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108288
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-01-05
Ever confirmed|0
13 matches
Mail list logo
