From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 72AB83857BA4; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:46:16 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 72AB83857BA4
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1705920376;
	bh=1/jd/LN+jiRBBE9J/XGd0/BUQQIuMDx+ChL7UBJqP+4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=oF5HxfrcEXsoWKXBWFrBXlRe1XVvWFl9BJMruTON6gNQ0h2ZCOVw0f4NIxwbUr3di
	 ZHtiinptfEvc1M0Y6EOOJPCqHy6ZhhjPBm1++chYNM5QeQTn8Ek4rBUZlLvfEVCVWu
	 HHBnxnT5JaEugzWu2862lYf+gpcyRjp0ub1X2YS0=
From: "iains at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libgcc/113401] Memory (resource) leak in -ftrampoline-impl=heap
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:46:15 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libgcc
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: iains at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-113401-4-H79QcmYU6m@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113401-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113401-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113401

--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #8)
> Which version of the manual page are you looking at?
>=20
> https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/pthread_cleanup_push.3.html seems
> pretty clear about the scope-based nature (search for discussion of
> break/return/goto).

yeah, got it; one needs to read the union of the sections (the page I was
reading was slightly different but the same basic info).

I suppose if we were able to create a wrapper around the thread routine and=
 the
cleanup was NOP for cases without nested fns.

Otherwise, it looks a bit tricky for platforms without thread_atexit suppor=
t.

Have to think some more.=