From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 77921 invoked by alias); 10 Mar 2015 12:25:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 77894 invoked by uid 48); 10 Mar 2015 12:25:15 -0000 From: "frankhb1989 at gmail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/65343] unexpected exception thrown during destruction of static object in debug mode Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 12:25:00 -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: 4.9.1 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: frankhb1989 at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED 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: In-Reply-To: References: 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: 2015-03/txt/msg01108.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65343 --- Comment #2 from frankhb1989 at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1) > Maybe we want to placement-new the mutexes into a buffer so they are never > destroyed, although on mingw that will show up as leaked resources at > program shutdown (and this is only really a problem on mingw as we don't > need to run any destructor on the mutexes for most targets). This could be an acceptable workaround for MinGW, but I am not sure if there would be some unexpected side effects. For other targets in future, this can still be a problem.