From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-337298-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 16277 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2010 11:06:04 -0000
Received: (qmail 16269 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Nov 2010 11:06:04 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:06:00 +0000
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/46455] resource leaks due to missing destructors for mutexes and condvars
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.6.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-46455-4-ZL9ZqdOk1R@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-46455-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-46455-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:16:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-11/txt/msg02031.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46455

--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-16 11:05:44 UTC ---
OK, that will be ugly though.  The cast from __gthread_recursive_mutex_t* to
__gthread_mutex_t* is not correct, because the "sema" member (the actual Win32
handle) is at a different offset in the two mutex types.

We want something like:

static inline int
__recursive_mutex_destroy(__gthread_recursive_mutex_t* __rmutex)
{
#ifdef _WIN32
  __gthread_mutex_t __tmp = { };
  __tmp.counter = __rmutex->counter;
  __tmp.sema = __rmutex->sema;
  __ghtread_mutex_t* __mutex = &__tmp;
#else
  __ghtread_mutex_t* __mutex = __rmutex;
#endif
  return ___gthread_mutex_destroy(__mutex);
}