Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<3FC76805.1050601@inf.ethz.ch>
Date:	Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:21:41 +0100
From:	Fabrice Marchal <fmarchal AT inf DOT ethz DOT ch>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language:	en-us, en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Code generation bug for operator new[] when -fcheck-new in GCC
	3.3.1
References:	<000001c3b5c2$bad46370$6400a8c0 AT DELL2K>
In-Reply-To:	<000001c3b5c2$bad46370$6400a8c0@DELL2K>
X-Enigmail-Version:	0.76.4.0
X-Enigmail-Supports:	pgp-inline, pgp-mime
X-Virus-Scanned:	by amavisd-new at inf.ethz.ch
X-Spam-Checker-Version:	SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on medoc

This looks similar to the problem I have with gcc 3.31 and mysql:
my code crashes after a constructor() as well. But it works on Linux 
(with gcc 3.3.1),
so is it a cygwin or gcc-on-cygwin problem?

Tom Scott wrote:

>This bug is more properly a bug with GCC and not with cygwin - it shows up
>in GCC 3.2.2 (i386-redhat-linux) as well. So I've submitted the problem to
>GCC Bugzilla.  It's Bug 13215. - Tom
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tom Scott [mailto:tscott AT StorageMatrix DOT com] 
>Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 4:17 PM
>To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
>Subject: Code generation bug for operator new[] when -fcheck-new in GCC
>3.3.1
>
>
>I've found that the following sample, which uses nothrow memory allocation
>semantics, generates a segmentation violation:
>
>// g++ -g -fcheck-new -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti sample.cpp #include
><stdlib.h>
> 
>class foo {
>public:
>    int v;
>    foo(){ v = 0; }
>    ~foo() {}
>    void* operator new[](size_t size) {
>        return 0;   // simulated memory failure
>    }
>    void operator delete[](void* p, size_t size) { }
>};
> 
>main()
>{
>    foo *p = new foo[2];
>    // p==4 here
>    if (p) delete [] p;
>    return 0;
>}
>
>The segmentation violation results from a bug in the code that is generated
>to call operator new[].  The return of operator new[] is correctly checked
>for non-zero before calling the ctor ("-fcheck-new" semantics), but this
>return value is subsequently incremented by 4.  As a result, p is set to 4
>(not 0) when memory runs out.
> 
>A work around is to modify applications so that the return value of "new
>class[]" is checked and to treat a return of 4 the same as 0.
> 
>Tom
>
>
>--
>Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
>Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
>Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
>FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
========================================================================
Fabrice Marchal           http://www.inf.ethz.ch/~marchal 
fabrice DOT marchal AT ieee DOT org  marchal AT inf DOT ethz DOT ch         +41-(0)1-632-56-79
ETH Zurich, CoLab Computational Laboratory        FAX:+41-(0)1-632-17-03
========================================================================



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -