* [Bug libstdc++/109889] [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026
2023-05-17 11:10 [Bug libstdc++/109889] New: [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026 redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-05-17 11:17 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-17 11:25 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-05-17 11:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109889
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Tulio found out that __gnu_debug::_Safe_iterator_base::_M_reset() is
overwriting the stack where r2 (TOC pointer) was saved by __run_exit_handlers()
(at address 0x00007fffffffe8e8). This function was called with the wrong
address of the object.
He was able to track this value back from
__gnu_debug::_Safe_sequence_base::_M_detach_all() at debug.cc:325
p *this
$1 = {
_M_iterators = 0x7fffffffe8e8,
_M_const_iterators = 0x0,
_M_version = 1
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/109889] [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026
2023-05-17 11:10 [Bug libstdc++/109889] New: [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026 redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-17 11:17 ` [Bug libstdc++/109889] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-05-17 11:25 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-17 11:26 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-05-17 11:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109889
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
r2 is the toc pointer, so having it 0 is weird.
Looking at glibc-2.36-10.fc37 (not sure if you are using a different one), I
see
000000000005b560 <__run_exit_handlers>:
5b560: 21 00 4c 3c addis r2,r12,33
5b564: a0 b9 42 38 addi r2,r2,-18016
...
5b5a8: 18 00 41 f8 std r2,24(r1)
so wonder what x/1gx $r1+24 is. Most likely some call from that function
didn't restore r2 properly?
Though, I believe in PowerPC ELFv2 it is the caller's responsibility to restore
it
and that is why it has the nops after bl (in case the call is guaranteed to be
into code with the same TOC) and ld r2,24(r1) otherwise.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/109889] [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026
2023-05-17 11:10 [Bug libstdc++/109889] New: [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026 redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-17 11:17 ` [Bug libstdc++/109889] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-17 11:25 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-05-17 11:26 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-17 11:30 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-05-17 11:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109889
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I wonder if we have a static destructor ordering problem.
The libstdc++ test code uses a local static std::map, which will be
constructed on first use and destroyed on exit. When built with
-D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG that is a __gnu_debug::map which uses checked iterators, so
keeps a list of all constructed iterators. On destruction that map locks a
mutex, which is another local static, and .
Since r13-6282-gd70f49e98245f8 the mutexes are created in a char buffer and
never destroyed:
// Use a static buffer, so that the mutexes are not destructed
// before potential users (or at all)
static __attribute__ ((aligned(__alignof__(M))))
char buffer[(sizeof (M)) * (mask + 1)];
static M *m = new (buffer) M[mask + 1];
return m[i];
But something could be wrong with lifetimes of those statics, causing an
invalid 'this' pointer to be used somewhere.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/109889] [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026
2023-05-17 11:10 [Bug libstdc++/109889] New: [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026 redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2023-05-17 11:26 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-05-17 11:30 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-17 15:04 ` tuliom at ascii dot art.br
` (10 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-05-17 11:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109889
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> r2 is the toc pointer, so having it 0 is weird.
> Looking at glibc-2.36-10.fc37 (not sure if you are using a different one), I
glibc-2.36-9.fc37.ppc64le
> see
> 000000000005b560 <__run_exit_handlers>:
> 5b560: 21 00 4c 3c addis r2,r12,33
> 5b564: a0 b9 42 38 addi r2,r2,-18016
> ...
> 5b5a8: 18 00 41 f8 std r2,24(r1)
> so wonder what x/1gx $r1+24 is.
(gdb) x/1gx $r1+24
0x7fffffffe8d8: 0x0000000000000000
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/109889] [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026
2023-05-17 11:10 [Bug libstdc++/109889] New: [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026 redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2023-05-17 11:30 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-05-17 15:04 ` tuliom at ascii dot art.br
2023-05-17 15:10 ` tuliom at ascii dot art.br
` (9 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: tuliom at ascii dot art.br @ 2023-05-17 15:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109889
--- Comment #5 from Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho <tuliom at ascii dot art.br> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> I wonder if we have a static destructor ordering problem.
I'm afraid the issue is happening earlier, when these iterators are being
initialized.
Look at this backtrace taken during initialization:
#0 0x00007ffff7b536e4 in __gnu_debug::_Safe_sequence_base::_M_attach_single
(this=0x100414c8 <__gnu_cxx::annotate_base::map_alloc()::_S_map>,
__it=0x7fffffffe8f8, __constant=false) at
/home/test/src/gcc/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/debug.cc:396
#1 0x00007ffff7b5376c in __gnu_debug::_Safe_sequence_base::_M_attach
(this=0x100414c8 <__gnu_cxx::annotate_base::map_alloc()::_S_map>,
__it=0x7fffffffe8f8, __constant=false) at
/home/test/src/gcc/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/debug.cc:383
#2 0x00007ffff7b53cd8 in __gnu_debug::_Safe_iterator_base::_M_attach
(this=0x7fffffffe8f8,
__seq=0x100414c8 <__gnu_cxx::annotate_base::map_alloc()::_S_map>,
__constant=false) at /home/test/src/gcc/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/debug.cc:430
#3 0x0000000010012244 in __gnu_debug::_Safe_iterator_base::_Safe_iterator_base
(__constant=false,
__seq=0x100414c8 <__gnu_cxx::annotate_base::map_alloc()::_S_map>,
this=<optimized out>)
at /home/test/gcc-14/include/c++/14.0.0/debug/safe_base.h:91
#4 __gnu_debug::_Safe_iterator<std::_Rb_tree_iterator<std::pair<void* const,
std::pair<unsigned long, unsigned long> > >, std::__debug::map<void*,
std::pair<unsigned long, unsigned long>, std::less<void*>,
std::allocator<std::pair<void* const, std::pair<unsigned long, unsigned long> >
> >, std::forward_iterator_tag>::_Safe_iterator (__seq=0x100414c8
<__gnu_cxx::annotate_base::map_alloc()::_S_map>, __i=..., this=0x7fffffffe8f0)
at /home/test/gcc-14/include/c++/14.0.0/debug/safe_iterator.h:162
#5 __gnu_debug::_Safe_iterator<std::_Rb_tree_iterator<std::pair<void* const,
std::pair<unsigned long, unsigned long> > >, std::__debug::map<void*,
std::pair<unsigned long, unsigned long>, std::less<void*>,
std::allocator<std::pair<void* const, std::pair<unsigned long, unsigned long> >
> >, std::bidirectional_iterator_tag>::_Safe_iterator (__seq=0x100414c8
<__gnu_cxx::annotate_base::map_alloc()::_S_map>, __i=..., this=0x7fffffffe8f0)
at /home/test/gcc-14/include/c++/14.0.0/debug/safe_iterator.h:539
#6 std::__debug::map<void*, std::pair<unsigned long, unsigned long>,
std::less<void*>, std::allocator<std::pair<void* const, std::pair<unsigned
long, unsigned long> > > >::find (__x=<synthetic pointer>: 0x0, this=0x100414c8
<__gnu_cxx::annotate_base::map_alloc()::_S_map>)
at /home/test/gcc-14/include/c++/14.0.0/debug/map.h:583
#7 __gnu_cxx::annotate_base::check_allocated (this=<optimized out>, size=4,
p=0x0)
at /home/test/gcc-14/include/c++/14.0.0/ext/throw_allocator.h:177
#8 __gnu_cxx::annotate_base::erase (p=p@entry=0x0, size=size@entry=4,
this=<optimized out>)
at /home/test/gcc-14/include/c++/14.0.0/ext/throw_allocator.h:146
#9 0x0000000010010474 in __gnu_cxx::throw_allocator_base<int,
__gnu_cxx::random_condition>::deallocate (this=<synthetic pointer>, __n=1,
__p=0x0) at /home/test/gcc-14/include/c++/14.0.0/ext/throw_allocator.h:888
#10 __gnu_test::check_deallocate_null<__gnu_cxx::throw_allocator_random<int> >
()
at /home/test/src/gcc/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/util/testsuite_allocator.h:255
#11 main () at
/home/test/src/gcc/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/ext/throw_allocator/check_deallocate_null.cc:30
Frame #2 references 0x7fffffffe8f8, which is part of the stack. Frame #5 is
also referencing an object in the stack.
After these functions return, these objects shouldn't be used anymore.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/109889] [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026
2023-05-17 11:10 [Bug libstdc++/109889] New: [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026 redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2023-05-17 15:04 ` tuliom at ascii dot art.br
@ 2023-05-17 15:10 ` tuliom at ascii dot art.br
2023-05-17 15:50 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: tuliom at ascii dot art.br @ 2023-05-17 15:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109889
--- Comment #6 from Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho <tuliom at ascii dot art.br> ---
Let me elaborate my previous comment...
When initializing the object at 0x100414c8, one of its members points to an
address in the stack (0x7fffffffe8f8).
All these functions return and when __run_exit_handlers() is called, the
address 0x7fffffffe8f8 is used to save the TOC pointer (r2) before calling the
destructors of the library.
The destructors manipulate the object at 0x100414c8, zeroing all its members,
including the address where the TOC pointer was saved.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/109889] [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026
2023-05-17 11:10 [Bug libstdc++/109889] New: [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026 redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2023-05-17 15:10 ` tuliom at ascii dot art.br
@ 2023-05-17 15:50 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-17 15:57 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-05-17 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109889
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
When the function returns the iterator's destructor should detach itself from
the sequence's list of iterators, so that it doesn't outlive the stack frame
containing the iterator.
The commit that caused the regression included this change:
_GLIBCXX_DEBUG_VERIFY(this->_M_incrementable(),
_M_message(__msg_bad_inc)
._M_iterator(*this, "this"));
- _Safe_iterator __ret = *this;
+ _Safe_iterator __ret(*this, _Unchecked());
++*this;
return __ret;
}
Maybe this affects how/when the __ret object gets destroyed, so it fails to
detach itself.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/109889] [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026
2023-05-17 11:10 [Bug libstdc++/109889] New: [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026 redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2023-05-17 15:50 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-05-17 15:57 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-17 15:58 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-05-17 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109889
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
With -std=c++14 there's no crash, with -std=c++17, so that confirms it's
something related to copy elision.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/109889] [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026
2023-05-17 11:10 [Bug libstdc++/109889] New: [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026 redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2023-05-17 15:57 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-05-17 15:58 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-17 15:59 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-05-17 15:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109889
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> With -std=c++14 there's no crash, with -std=c++17,
Should have said "only with -std=c++17" (and later, of course).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/109889] [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026
2023-05-17 11:10 [Bug libstdc++/109889] New: [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026 redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2023-05-17 15:58 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-05-17 15:59 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-17 19:38 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-05-17 15:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109889
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> Should have said "only with -std=c++17" (and later, of course).
Actually, that's wrong, *only* with C++17, not earlier *or* later.
So the further changes to elision rules after C++17 changed the behaviour
again.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/109889] [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026
2023-05-17 11:10 [Bug libstdc++/109889] New: [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026 redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2023-05-17 15:59 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-05-17 19:38 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-19 12:49 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-05-17 19:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109889
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|--- |13.2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/109889] [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026
2023-05-17 11:10 [Bug libstdc++/109889] New: [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026 redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2023-05-17 19:38 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-05-19 12:49 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-24 12:04 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-05-19 12:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109889
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The test looks like this:
#include <ext/throw_allocator.h>
#include <testsuite_allocator.h>
int main()
{
typedef int value_type;
typedef __gnu_cxx::throw_allocator_random<value_type> allocator_type;
try { __gnu_test::check_deallocate_null<allocator_type>(); }
catch (std::logic_error&)
{
// Should throw logic_error to catch null erase.
}
return 0;
}
Where check_deallocate_null does:
template<typename Alloc>
bool
check_deallocate_null()
{
// Let's not core here...
Alloc a;
a.deallocate(0, 1);
a.deallocate(0, 10);
return true;
}
The first call to deallocate results in a call to:
// See if a particular address and allocation size has been saved.
inline map_alloc_type::iterator
check_allocated(void* p, size_t size)
{
map_alloc_type::iterator found = map_alloc().find(p);
if (found == map_alloc().end())
{
std::string error("annotate_base::check_allocated by value "
"null erase!\n");
log_to_string(error, make_entry(p, size));
std::__throw_logic_error(error.c_str());
}
This creates a debug mode iterator (found) and attaches it to the list of
iterators for the static map created here:
static map_alloc_type&
map_alloc()
{
static map_alloc_type _S_map;
return _S_map;
}
The call to map_alloc().end() then creates a second iterator, which is attached
to the list, and then detached when it goes out of scope.
Then we throw an exception, which is caught in main() and we return from
main().
The first iterator, found, was not destroyed, and so was not detached from the
list of active iterators. When the map gets destroyed it detaches the iterator
and calls its _M_reset() member to note that the iterator is now invalid
(because the map it refers to no logner exists). But that iterator only existed
on the stack of check_allocated, and calling _M_reset() on that stack address
corrupts the stack.
The found iterator should have been destroyed when the exception was thrown and
the stack was unwound.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/109889] [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026
2023-05-17 11:10 [Bug libstdc++/109889] New: [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026 redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2023-05-19 12:49 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-05-24 12:04 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-27 9:26 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-05-21 9:15 ` [Bug libstdc++/109889] [13/14/15 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-05-24 12:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109889
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> I see this on power 9 fedora 37 (glibc-2.36) but not on power 8 centos 7.9
> (glibc-2.17).
Also seen on power 9 rhel 9 (glibc-2.34-60.el9.ppc64le)
Not reproduced on Fedora 38 (glibc-2.37-4.fc38.ppc64le) for power 8 or power 9.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/109889] [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026
2023-05-17 11:10 [Bug libstdc++/109889] New: [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026 redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2023-05-24 12:04 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-07-27 9:26 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-05-21 9:15 ` [Bug libstdc++/109889] [13/14/15 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-07-27 9:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109889
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|13.2 |13.3
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 13.2 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 13.3.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/109889] [13/14/15 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026
2023-05-17 11:10 [Bug libstdc++/109889] New: [13/14 Regression] Segfault in __run_exit_handlers since r13-5309-gc3c6c307792026 redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2023-07-27 9:26 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-05-21 9:15 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-05-21 9:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109889
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|13.3 |13.4
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 13.3 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 13.4.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread