From: "François Dumont" <frs.dumont@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
Cc: rs2740@gmail.com, libstdc++ <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org>,
gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ABI break in _Hash_node_value_base since GCC 11 [PR 111050]
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 06:44:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <eaaf946b-7633-1bd9-9a06-74b4920a13e2@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f89779c9-6816-8bf8-af29-fa4cc1f2fda6@gmail.com>
Still no chance to get feedback from TC ? Maybe I can commit the below
then ?
AFAICS on gcc mailing list several gcc releases were done recently, too
late.
On 14/09/2023 06:46, François Dumont wrote:
> Author: TC <rs2740@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed Sep 6 19:31:55 2023 +0200
>
> libstdc++: Force _Hash_node_value_base methods inline to fix abi
> (PR111050)
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=1b6f0476837205932613ddb2b3429a55c26c409d
>
> changed _Hash_node_value_base to no longer derive from
> _Hash_node_base, which means
> that its member functions expect _M_storage to be at a different
> offset. So explosions
> result if an out-of-line definition is emitted for any of the
> member functions (say,
> in a non-optimized build) and the resulting object file is then
> linked with code built
> using older version of GCC/libstdc++.
>
> libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>
> PR libstdc++/111050
> * include/bits/hashtable_policy.h
> (_Hash_node_value_base<>::_M_valptr(),
> _Hash_node_value_base<>::_M_v())
> Add [[__gnu__::__always_inline__]].
>
> Ok to commit ?
>
> On 12/09/2023 18:09, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 18:19, François Dumont <frs.dumont@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/09/2023 13:51, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 10 Sept 2023 at 14:57, François Dumont via Libstdc++
>>>> <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>>>> Following confirmation of the fix by TC here is the patch where I'm
>>>>> simply adding a 'constexpr' on _M_next().
>>>>>
>>>>> Please let me know this ChangeLog entry is correct. I would prefer
>>>>> this
>>>>> patch to be assigned to 'TC' with me as co-author but I don't know
>>>>> how
>>>>> to do such a thing. Unless I need to change my user git identity
>>>>> to do so ?
>>>> Sam already explained that, but please check with Tim how he wants to
>>>> be credited, if at all. He doesn't have a copyright assignment, and
>>>> hasn't added a DCO sign-off to the patch, but it's small enough to not
>>>> need it as this is the first contribution credited to him.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> libstdc++: Add constexpr qualification to
>>>>> _Hash_node::_M_next()
>>>> What has this constexpr addition got to do with the ABI change and the
>>>> always_inline attributes?
>>>>
>>>> It certainly doesn't seem like it should be the summary line of the
>>>> git commit message.
>>> Oops, sorry, that's what I had started to do before Tim submitted
>>> anything.
>>>
>>> Here is latest version:
>> No patch attached, and the ChangeLog below still mentions the constexpr.
>>
>> I've pinged Tim via another channel to ask him about the author
>> attribution.
>>
>>
>>> Author: TC <rs2740@gmail.com>
>>> Date: Wed Sep 6 19:31:55 2023 +0200
>>>
>>> libstdc++: Force inline on _Hash_node_value_base methods to
>>> fix abi
>>> (PR111050)
>>>
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=1b6f0476837205932613ddb2b3429a55c26c409d
>>>
>>> changed _Hash_node_value_base to no longer derive from
>>> _Hash_node_base, which means
>>> that its member functions expect _M_storage to be at a different
>>> offset. So explosions
>>> result if an out-of-line definition is emitted for any of the
>>> member functions (say,
>>> in a non-optimized build) and the resulting object file is then
>>> linked with code built
>>> using older version of GCC/libstdc++.
>>>
>>> libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> PR libstdc++/111050
>>> * include/bits/hashtable_policy.h
>>> (_Hash_node_value_base<>::_M_valptr(),
>>> _Hash_node_value_base<>::_M_v())
>>> Add [[__gnu__::__always_inline__]].
>>> (_Hash_node<>::_M_next()): Add constexpr.
>>>
>>> Co-authored-by: François Dumont <fdumont@gcc.gnu.org>
>>>
>>> Ok for you TC (Tim ?) ?
>>>
>>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-27 4:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-10 13:56 François Dumont
2023-09-10 15:36 ` Sam James
2023-09-11 11:51 ` Jonathan Wakely
2023-09-11 17:19 ` François Dumont
2023-09-12 16:09 ` Jonathan Wakely
2023-09-14 4:46 ` François Dumont
2023-09-27 4:44 ` François Dumont [this message]
2023-09-28 16:18 ` Jonathan Wakely
2023-09-28 17:25 ` François Dumont
2023-09-29 9:53 ` Jonathan Wakely
2023-10-02 20:51 ` François Dumont
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=eaaf946b-7633-1bd9-9a06-74b4920a13e2@gmail.com \
--to=frs.dumont@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jwakely@redhat.com \
--cc=libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=rs2740@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).