From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22319 invoked by alias); 23 Sep 2008 17:40:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 22287 invoked by uid 48); 23 Sep 2008 17:40:12 -0000 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:40:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080923174012.22285.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug libgcj/18266] GCJ: Using references drops finalizers causing all apps to eventually crash ( SIGSEGV in GC_register_finalizer_inner () ) In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: java-prs@gcc.gnu.org From: "daney at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact java-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-q3/txt/msg00066.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #18 from daney at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-23 17:40 ------- Created an attachment (id=16396) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16396&action=view) Possible work-around This is a patch against 3.4.3 that we are seriously considering using internally. The theory is: With code compiled from valid java source, it is impossible to be GCable while holding a lock, so adding a finalizer is redundant. It is still not clear to me if the number of heavy_locks could grow without bound while using the patch. We are analyzing this now... -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18266