在 2022/10/21 20:34, i.nixman@autistici.org 写道:
> 
> got it...
> anyway it seems logical to me the way I proposed :)
> 
> 

Below is a message forwarded from mingw-w64-public, elaborating the necessity of a new thread model.

As there are objections from other mingw-w64 developers, I am putting those patches against 
mingw-w64-crt on hold for now. Despite that, all threading facilities - mutexes, condition 
variables, once flags, etc. - are still fully functional within the mcf thread model.

In addition, I will keep maintaining my personal builds (from GCC 12 release branch) with these 
patches at https://gcc-mcf.lhmouse.com/.


-------- Forwarded Message --------
在 2022/10/23 18:06, Jacek Caban 写道:
 >
 > Please, let's not do that. It's possible to fix existing implementations, we don't need to make
 > things more complicated than they are.
 >

Okay okay, I think I have to compose a thorough list of problems that we are facing at the moment, 
and had better have a permalink to the mailing list archive that I can reference elsewhere. I have 
been tired of repeating the same grounds of arguments again and again:


1. In a DLL, destructors of static objects and callbacks that are registered
     with `atexit()`, are executed by `LdrShutdownProcess()`, after all the other
     thread have been terminated `ZwTerminateProcessO(NULL, status)`. This means
     that, if another thread has been terminated while holding a mutex, the mutex
     can never get unlocked. If a destructor attempts to lock the same mutex,
     deadlocks will occur. Destructors of executables do not suffer from this
     issue, because they are executed before `RtlExitUserProcess()`.

     Standard behavior: Static destructors and exit callbacks should be executed
     while other threads are running. If another thread attempts to access a
     destroyed object, the behavior is undefined; the user is responsible to
     prevent this from happening, by joining or suspending it.


2. Following 1, in a DLL, static destructors and exit callbacks are still
     invoked when `_Exit()` or `quick_exit()` is called.

     Standard behavior: `_Exit()` should not perform any cleanup; not even open
     files are flushed. `quick_exit()` shall invoke all quick-exit callbacks in
     reverse order, then call `_Exit()`.


3. There is a use-after-free bug [1] about thread-local destructors. I suspect
     this is caused by emutls, because GCC uses `__cxa_thread_atexit()` to
     register thread-local destructors, which could interleave with
     `emutls_destroy()`.

     Standard behavior: This is not allowed to happen. mcfgthread solves this
     issue by running thread-local destructors and thread-specific key
     destructors as two separate passes [3].

     [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80816
     [2] 
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/f84e4fb44aa26b71fbc64e0532fd24d96e5caa3f/libgcc/emutls.c#L96
     [3] 
https://github.com/lhmouse/mcfgthread/blob/63e034d375caf585e2921cd3455f1048feb2172d/src/xglobals.c#L249


4. In the win32 thread model, thread-specific key destructors are called at
     process exit [4], after static destructors.

     Standard behavior: They shall be called only when a thread exits, and the
     associated thread-specific values are not a null pointer. They shall not be
     called when a program terminates; instead, users are responsible for
     deallocating such resources before calling `exit()`. This requirement is
     missing in POSIX, but formally specified by ISO/IEC 9899:2017, as the 4th
     paragraph in '7.26.6.1 The tss_create function'.

     [4] 
https://github.com/mingw-w64/mingw-w64/blob/d0a034a04d312434b842c4869a8a900568d8db98/mingw-w64-crt/crt/tlsthrd.c#L134


5. Wait operations, of timed mutexes and condition variables, should take
     absolute time points as `struct timespec`.

     Standard behavior: Both POSIX and ISO C specifies them as such, while all
     Windows APIs take relative durations as a 32-bit integer of milliseconds,
     which can also easily get overflown.


-- 
Best regards,
LIU Hao