DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 delorie.com 56TLZ5IG1042309
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org B57823858D26
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 14:34:00 -0700 (PDT)
To: Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin <cygwin@cygwin.com>
cc: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com>
Subject: Re: new c++ new/delete overloads need wrapping?
In-Reply-To: <ba3639bf-1286-4a97-583b-42ee7e61cecb@jdrake.com>
Message-ID: <2786ab8c-11a7-b1e4-59a0-02f567b3f368@jdrake.com>
References: <81535510-8360-1c72-442a-0b630a6d937f@jdrake.com>
 <aINAAW2oh-EfgP0V@calimero.vinschen.de>
 <d2b0c82b-7390-7efe-789f-8d11120ec12a@jdrake.com>
 <aIdBw5iSaIonAPbI@calimero.vinschen.de>
 <80497791-d323-4204-66ef-4b1a8ff45aa9@jdrake.com>
 <aIiItsyRODNPeqez@calimero.vinschen.de>
 <ba3639bf-1286-4a97-583b-42ee7e61cecb@jdrake.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list
From: Jeremy Drake via Cygwin <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Reply-To: Jeremy Drake <cygwin@jdrake.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: cygwin-bounces~archive-cygwin=delorie.com@cygwin.com
Sender: "Cygwin" <cygwin-bounces~archive-cygwin=delorie.com@cygwin.com>

On Tue, 29 Jul 2025, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Jul 2025, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin wrote:
>
> > On Jul 28 12:57, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin wrote:
> > > On Mon, 28 Jul 2025, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin wrote:
> > > > Unless there's some automatism referencing the __wrap_X functions even
> > > > if the --wrap option isn't present, I don't see this incompatibility as
> > > > much of a problem.  We're trying to maintain backward compat, but that
> > > > doesn't mean an executable created under  and for a newer Cygwin DLL
> > > > has to run under an older DLL.
> > >
> > > OK, then the patch adds support for wrapping these functions ends up in a
> > > stable Cygwin release, then GCC is updated to add additional --wrap
> > > parameters for them, and that GCC and binaries it produces will no longer
> > > be compatible with older Cygwin DLLs.
> >
> > *iff* the --wrap option is used with functions not provided by older
> > DLLs, right?  Not for some reason generally incompatible, I hope...
>
> Correct.  However, I expect that to be very common for C++ binaries,
> because it seems like the C++14 sized delete is now used by default for
> ordinary (non-array) delete.

Oh, and you know what else uses these symbols... libstdc++-6.dll.
And the larger cygwin_cxx_malloc struct will mean that binaries that try
to fill it out will need a newer DLL version with the larger struct
(libstdc++-6.dll being notable there as it provides the implementations
generally).

-- 
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