X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to
	:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=fS6e6m77jUmCrdEo
	Gq38B2MFTcphQO5QRD6wLzlqAB3EMMQ/4501LuHHX6xwZFT7biUlBSCJNGTjQj2B
	ytgbKYOyN1L0tKSeMvZHGVJ4/i0Pw+RuRHsOPggRr0qQEV+2UNg28YcFxtLyqNkr
	cYeQT22ChvcMRqC3VM5UOKtnDSM=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to
	:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=2XVN/My6ekbTAKFKZ2DzSF
	BSaQs=; b=uP/9dHInpX00s6QGq2oKrlZ2Y09yxDdOjGGXFzq/t87+MBg4I3AeGh
	o7uE9IYX7ys7MGyyK6KjR5MoACet5sReP9C7OUArJgTJ3nVVzaB0skVcPVzRrHhZ
	kgM2YsbZ+uRaNnwGDAdMQLIXAUh6nrkQUcC3lHMxYxcu0O0SeR5es=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO:	vms173017pub.verizon.net
Message-id:	<53DBD151.90308@cygwin.com>
Date:	Fri, 01 Aug 2014 13:41:37 -0400
From:	"Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-to:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Destructors not called for c++11 thread_local objects
References:	<53DBCF39 DOT 9050309 AT cs DOT utoronto DOT ca>
In-reply-to:	<53DBCF39.9050309@cs.utoronto.ca>

On 08/01/2014 01:32 PM, Ryan Johnson wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> (Please CC me in replies, I'm not subscribed to the list)
>
> Question: is this a Cygwin bug, gcc bug, or somebody else's bug entirely?
>
> The following STC shows the problem:
>
> $ cat bug.cpp
> #include <cstdio>
> static thread_local struct X {
>      int x;
>      X() { puts("hi"); }
>      ~X() { puts("bye!"); }
> } x;
> int main() { x.x = 0; }
>
> $ g++ -std=gnu++11 -Wall -g bug.cpp && ./a
> hi
>
> A quick inspection of the assembly code shows no call to __cxa_thread_atexit
> in __tls_init, where the same code compiled on linux, with the same version
> of gcc, has it right. This is odd, because the function does seem to be
> available in cygwin's libstdc++:
>
> $ nm /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-cygwin/4.8.3/libstdc++.a | grep thread_atexit
> 0000000000000000 d .data$_ZZ19__cxa_thread_atexitE4once
> 0000000000000000 p .pdata$__cxa_thread_atexit
> 0000000000000000 t .text$__cxa_thread_atexit
> 0000000000000000 r .xdata$__cxa_thread_atexit
> 0000000000000000 T __cxa_thread_atexit
> 0000000000000000 d _ZZ19__cxa_thread_atexitE4once
>
> Here's the linux version of __tls_init:
>> __tls_init:
>> .LFB19:
>>         cmpb    $0, %fs:__tls_guard AT tpoff
>>         je      .L7
>>         rep; ret
>> .L7:
>>         subq    $8, %rsp
>>         movl    $.LC1, %edi
>>         movb    $1, %fs:__tls_guard AT tpoff
>>         call    puts
>>         movq    %fs:0, %rsi
>>         movl    $__dso_handle, %edx
>>         movl    $_ZN1XD1Ev, %edi
>>         addq    $8, %rsp
>>         addq    $_ZL1x AT tpoff, %rsi
>>         jmp     __cxa_thread_atexit
> vs. the same for cygwin:
>> __tls_init:
>>         subq    $40, %rsp
>>         leaq    __emutls_v.__tls_guard(%rip), %rcx
>>         call    __emutls_get_address
>>         cmpb    $0, (%rax)
>>         je      .L27
>>         addq    $40, %rsp
>>         ret
>> .L27:
>>         leaq    .LC0(%rip), %rcx
>>         movb    $1, (%rax)
>>         addq    $40, %rsp
>>         jmp     puts
>
> Relevant packages installed:
> binutils                              2.24.51-4
> cygwin                                1.7.30-1
> gcc-core                              4.8.3-2
> gcc-g++                               4.8.3-2
> libstdc++6                            4.8.3-2
>
> (I realize I'm a version behind on cygwin1.dll, but I don't think that's the
> problem here)
>
> Thoughts?


Well it's not a general gcc problem because the same code on Linux with
version 4.8.3 works for me.

-- 
Larry

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

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

- Raw text -