DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 delorie.com 56S9PUQW4187055
Authentication-Results: delorie.com; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=cygwin.com
Authentication-Results: delorie.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cygwin.com
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 delorie.com 56S9PUQW4187055
Authentication-Results: delorie.com;
	dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=cygwin.com header.i=@cygwin.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=iXQDJH7t
X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4E0753857439
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com;
	s=default; t=1753694729;
	bh=2E/6Xg3/Vw4gL2OaRApqH67N+9SUsJ283/8AjJrNUP0=;
	h=Date:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:
	 List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc:
	 From;
	b=iXQDJH7tLBniXJU92DPZ0ICYV2Py/xqDhnWsxpmUHK1vl5vQXt/qJ3cMM14R3/wzW
	 mst7H0eYyVIjmVr42emkj0RvCZOkG8H2kw2a/WlSRREwFZGhcmnf3+g3667kNLq1eQ
	 JUZvzSfeRId0gSKE5A5QoGN4duc8gbotT8kYC7L0=
X-Original-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 77E623857712
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 11:24:19 +0200
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: new c++ new/delete overloads need wrapping?
Message-ID: <aIdBw5iSaIonAPbI@calimero.vinschen.de>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <81535510-8360-1c72-442a-0b630a6d937f AT jdrake DOT com>
 <aINAAW2oh-EfgP0V AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
 <d2b0c82b-7390-7efe-789f-8d11120ec12a AT jdrake DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d2b0c82b-7390-7efe-789f-8d11120ec12a@jdrake.com>
X-BeenThere: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30
Precedence: list
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: Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Cc: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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>

On Jul 25 11:05, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2025, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin wrote:
> 
> > On Jul 24 22:41, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin wrote:
> > > I was looking into C++ new/delete --wrap linker options, and noticed that
> > > in a quick test the wrapper for delete was not being called.  This was
> > > because delete is being compiled to _ZdlPvm and that symbol is not present
> > > in the --wrap arguments in the GCC spec, and is not part of the
> > > per_process_cxx_malloc struct.  I'm not seeing anything in that cxx_malloc
> > > struct like a size or version number, so I don't know a good way to
> > > extend it given that it is part of the startup code linked into every
> > > binary.
> > >
> > But first I have to tell you that I'm fuzzy on how this exactly is
> > working together.  I can't tell you how this affects GCC or LD.
> 
> Here's my understanding so far:
> GCC's spec for linking on Cygwin includes several --wrap X, one for each
> of these symbols.  What this parameter does in LD is that any references
> to symbol X are rewritten to __wrap_X, and a definition of X is rewritten
> to __real_X.  The Cygwin DLL exports the __wrap_X symbols, so any callers
> will end up there.
> 
> In order to detect attempts to override the symbols, the Cygwin startup
> code defines weak symbols for them with asm redirecting to the __real_X
> names, and initializes a struct with pointers to them.  These will be NULL
> if the symbols are not defined.  Interestingly, this seems to not count
> the jump stubs when the symbols are pulled in from a DLL.  (Neither of
> these things are true right now with LLD... Bugs, I guess).  This struct
> is then merged and copied to the Cygwin DLL's struct, which is used to
> dispatch calls in the __wrap_X functions.
> 
> As such, I believe that Cygwin would need to be updated first to provide
> the __wrap_X functions, and then GCC would need to be updated to add the
> --wrap X linker parameters because that would then reference those
> symbols.  I believe GCC after that change would be incompatible with
> Cygwin before the new symbols are exported, if those symbols are
> referenced (and I was seeing one of the new delete symbols referenced by a
> simple delete p; of a scalar, so it may be something a newer now-default
> C++ version does).

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.


Corinna

-- 
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