X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Filter:	OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org AF7AB385842D
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com;
	s=default; t=1705724366;
	bh=sqfEcemKjeWr9kAgewGPYv385sVI+sr8y+kI8v1bT5E=;
	h=Date:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:
	List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:
	From;
	b=I8hhBMWnLOPgMvWDccTaE8m//w8X+6vUdsrxIYEKaDKv10yel3jxI1GsMiRzcY0dU
	B7oSeeR9fc26WaaO77MQJ0WZsZ4n9u3i+mvZLmSHkcJqzuqqDMLOPORUQYgGGUfW3I
	6O3+rf/w4VnF8L5zbhBeqfdj1Xy7eVoLniDohGxk=
X-Original-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
DMARC-Filter:	OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 94C743858D3C
ARC-Filter:	OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 94C743858D3C
ARC-Seal:	i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1705724312; cv=none;
	b=UaL06qdjUI0qLdwGe8DCi3vhXhlz9nlaHdM94ZlOS5tLyVipV6oRNXSOLgrs/3gAzs+3on8F3XtpRNFfaTIxt/Kv0vBUtje0Q9CEgiepW1DXDG0tgssmIsjrBZyJv8h8dU5fw5bncjAx41xouQs0KC996hQKSV63Zra2YTR4tdw=
ARC-Message-Signature:	i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key;
	t=1705724312; c=relaxed/simple;
	bh=XkHisRUs5alVbvH+pRAFuLPz6dfo2+hQ0girvo1hxsU=;
	h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Mime-Version;
	b=ZmWGRT9OqlYpvMjioK4tKBehfqgxA6mFVIPX0i6XQM0vraMjBCLqEqrkHvJCeeOeVIV1dyGyBoqBhpZUfIGMpxqoSJqJthNPOM0hihWZ1sb6/zEfgs1+Ifs9D/DeW3/KbbIE05rjVy0WCg1JHqCJB/AXFmiYiHSZMKqbi2yw8ZU=
ARC-Authentication-Results:	i=1; server2.sourceware.org
Date:	Sat, 20 Jan 2024 13:18:25 +0900
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Possiblly bug of cygwin1.dll
Message-Id:	<20240120131825.4157c259fe058155137d6fe0@nifty.ne.jp>
In-Reply-To:	<ZaqHGElhXZIc3NFX@calimero.vinschen.de>
References:	<20240119224436 DOT 876a055f356f7c6796bc725b AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
	<ZaqHGElhXZIc3NFX AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
X-Mailer:	Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.30; i686-pc-mingw32)
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Spam-Status:	No, score=-5.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS,
	NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP,
	T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version:	SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
	server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Mailman-Version:	2.1.30
List-Id:	General Cygwin discussions and problem reports <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<https://cygwin.com/mailman/options/cygwin>,
	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive:	<https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe:	<https://cygwin.com/mailman/listinfo/cygwin>,
	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=subscribe>
From:	Takashi Yano via Cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-To:	Takashi Yano <takashi DOT yano AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
Errors-To:	cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com
Sender:	"Cygwin" <cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>

Hi Corinna,

On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 15:28:40 +0100
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jan 19 22:44, Takashi Yano via Cygwin wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I might find the bug of cygwin1.dll (including 3.4.x, 3.5.0 (TEST)).
> > The following test case (c++ code) causes handle leak.
> > 
> > This issue is reproducible with both g++ and clang++.
> > However, it does not happen in Linux environment.
> > So I guess this is the cygwin1.dlll bug.
> > 
> > I looked into this problem a bit, and found number of event handle
> > increases every loop.
> > 
> > I doubt pthread_mutex_xxx functions.
> > 
> > #include <future>
> > int func() { return 0; }
> > int main()
> > {
> >   for (;;) {
> >     std::future<int> f = std::async(std::launch::async, func);
> >     f.get();
> >   }
> >   return 0;
> > }
> 
> Can you create a plain C testcase from there?  It's much easier to
> debug.

I could symplify the test case:
#include <mutex>
int main()
{
  for (;;) {
    std::mutex *m = new std::mutex;
    m->lock();
    m->unlock();
    delete m;
  }
  return 0;
}

And I tried to observe the pthread_mutex_xxx() call. Then found the
test case does like:

#include <pthread.h>
int main()
{
  for (;;) {
    pthread_mutex_t m = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
    pthread_mutex_lock(&m);
    pthread_mutex_unlock(&m);
  }
  return 0;
}

POSIX states pthread_mutex_t can be initialized with
PTREAD_MUTEX_INITIALZER when it is STATICALLY allocated.

In this case, m is not static. So it seems that this is
a bug of libstdc++. However, the plain c code above works
in Linux without problems even with non-static mutex m.

I guess it is very difficult to make the plain c code above
work in cygwin, because cygwin can not know when cygwin can
discard the mutex resources...

-- 
Takashi Yano <takashi DOT yano AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>

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

- Raw text -