From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-475069-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 26891 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2015 12:10:13 -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
Received: (qmail 26709 invoked by uid 55); 27 Jan 2015 12:09:56 -0000
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/64535] Emergency buffer for exception allocation too small
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:10:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-64535-4-zgbP0FptjI@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-64535-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-64535-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg03063.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64535

--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64535
> 
> Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
> 
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                  CC|                            |mark at gcc dot gnu.org
> 
> --- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> I think a destructor is too risky here.
> Can't you just register with valgrind a pointer known not to be freed at exit?
> Would be nice to have something like __libc_freeres for libstdc++ too, that
> valgrind/mtrace/LeakSanitizer could invoke.
> I'm afraid tons of programs just do busy work in various threads until some
> thread exits the whole app, and your change could break it.

It indeed would free memory of in-flight exceptions.  Which means that
process termination in OOM situations might become interesting?

OTOH we now leak with dlopen/dlclose of libstdc++.so (just consider
doing that multiple times).