The patch for 22309 kills Solaris 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, and 2.9. The failure mode is as follows: FAIL: ext/mt_allocator/check_allocate_big_per_type.cc execution test FAIL: ext/mt_allocator/check_delete.cc execution test FAIL: ext/mt_allocator/check_new.cc execution test FAIL: ext/mt_allocator/deallocate_global_thread-1.cc execution test FAIL: ext/mt_allocator/deallocate_global_thread-3.cc execution test FAIL: ext/mt_allocator/deallocate_local_thread-1.cc execution test FAIL: ext/mt_allocator/deallocate_local_thread-3.cc execution test FAIL: ext/mt_allocator/tune-1.cc execution test FAIL: ext/mt_allocator/tune-2.cc execution test FAIL: ext/mt_allocator/tune-3.cc execution test FAIL: ext/mt_allocator/tune-4.cc execution test And can be seen here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg01189.html Eric Botcazou provided the following commentary in private email: backtrace at -O0: Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0x0001d354 in __gnu_cxx::__pool_base::_M_get_binmap (this=0x30eac, __bytes=40) at ext/mt_allocator.h:146 146 { return _M_binmap[__bytes]; } (gdb) bt #0 0x0001d354 in __gnu_cxx::__pool_base::_M_get_binmap (this=0x30eac, __bytes=40) at ext/mt_allocator.h:146 #1 0x0001d7fc in __gnu_cxx::__mt_alloc<unsigned int, __gnu_cxx::__common_pool_policy<__gnu_cxx::__pool, true> >::allocate (this=0xffbefa3e, __n=10) at ext/mt_allocator.h:674 #2 0x0001d940 in __gnu_test::check_new<__gnu_cxx::__mt_alloc<unsigned int, __gnu_cxx::__common_pool_policy<__gnu_cxx::__pool, true> >, true> (a=@0xffbefa3e) at testsuite_allocator.h:187 #3 0x0001d9cc in test01 () at /home/eric/cvs/gcc-4_0-branch/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/ext/mt_allocator/check_new.cc:49 #4 0x0001da7c in main () at /home/eric/cvs/gcc-4_0-branch/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/ext/mt_allocator/check_new.cc:54 (gdb) p _M_binmap $1 = (short unsigned int *) 0x0 I put 3 breakpoints in mt_allocator.cc and _M_binmap is never initialized, as __gnu_cxx::__common_pool_base<__gnu_cxx::__pool, true>::_S_initialize() is never called. The problem stems from: static void _S_initialize_once() { static bool __init; if (__builtin_expect(__init == false, false)) { if (__gthread_active_p()) { // On some platforms, __gthread_once_t is an aggregate. static __gthread_once_t __once = __GTHREAD_ONCE_INIT; __gthread_once(&__once, _S_initialize); } else _S_get_pool()._M_initialize_once(); __init = true; } } __gthread_once never calls _S_initialize on Solaris 7, 8, 9, while it does on Solaris 10. This boils down to the following lines in the manual: " These switches are supported in addition to the above on Solaris: `-threads' Add support for multithreading using the Solaris threads library. This option sets flags for both the preprocessor and linker. This option does not affect the thread safety of object code produced by the compiler or that of libraries supplied with it. `-pthreads' Add support for multithreading using the POSIX threads library. This option sets flags for both the preprocessor and linker. This option does not affect the thread safety of object code produced by the compiler or that of libraries supplied with it." You need to pass -pthreads to the compiler to make the thing work. More: No, pthread_cancel is defined because it is present in the libc: gax% nm -pl /lib/libc.so.1 | grep pthread_cancel 0000634812 T* _pthread_cancel 0000634812 T* pthread_cancel gax% nm -pl /lib/libpthread.so.1 | grep pthread_cancel 0000015516 T _pthread_cancel 0000015516 T* pthread_cancel Same for pthread_once: gax% nm -pl /lib/libc.so.1 | grep pthread_once 0000635324 T* _pthread_once 0000635324 T* pthread_once gax% nm -pl /lib/libpthread.so.1 | grep pthread_once 0000015476 T _pthread_once 0000015476 T* pthread_once But the latter is probably a dummy function because: Reformatting page. Please Wait... done Threads Library Functions pthread_once(3THR) NAME pthread_once - initialize dynamic package [...] NOTES Solaris threads do not offer this functionality. SunOS 5.8 Last change: 2 Jun 1998 2 The situation is different on Solaris 10 because all the functions in the pthreads library are only placeholders for the libc functions: hikaru% nm -pl /lib/libpthread.so.1 | grep pthread_cancel 0000000000 T _pthread_cancel 0000000000 T pthread_cancel hikaru% nm -pl /lib/libc.so.1 | grep pthread_cancel 0000703188 T _pthread_cancel 0000703188 T* pthread_cancel ... thus leading to the odd behavior where __gthread_active_p is true, but __gthread_once doesn't run the "once" function, and yet returns zero. It looks like this has been an issue in past versions of the mt_allocator.h code, in that initialization was forced after the gthread_once call. This was confusing, but apparently necessary due to the tricky gthread_once issue. Possible solutions: 1) force double initialization again. 2) add dg-options "-pthread" for solaris on the given testsuite files 3) link libstdc++ builds on solaris with -pthread. Libjava already does this. See see libjava/configure.ac:759. 4) fix __gthread_active_p on solaris to make it work like other systems.
Created attachment 9815 [details] force intialization patch
> Possible solutions: > > 1) force double initialization again. > 2) add dg-options "-pthread" for solaris on the given testsuite files > 3) link libstdc++ builds on solaris with -pthread. Libjava already does this. > See see libjava/configure.ac:759. > 4) fix __gthread_active_p on solaris to make it work like other systems. I think we need to do both 3) [but again libjava is not built with -pthreads, it is *linked* against -lpthread and on *all* platforms] and 4).
I'm confused about the status of this bug. I believe it is fixed on the 4.0 branch (originally for 4.0.2, but due to the release both, actually for 4.0.3). However, this bug is still marked as "New". If the problem is fixed, please close the PR. Thanks, -- Mark
> I'm confused about the status of this bug. I believe it is fixed on the 4.0 > branch (originally for 4.0.2, but due to the release both, actually for 4.0.3). > However, this bug is still marked as "New". If the problem is fixed, please > close the PR. The fix is more of a workaround around the peculiarity of __gthread_active_p on Solaris (duality Solaris/POSIX threads) than a fix, so I think the PR should be kept open and the target milestone probably not set to 4.0.3.
OK, I have unset the target milestone. Thanks, -- Mark
Hey dudes. Mark, the original problem report, the fails, is fixed on mainline and on the gcc-4_0-branch. It looks like the fix for this, after all our effort, did not make it into 4.0.2. Whoops: mistakes happen. I didn't consider this stop-ship then and certainly don't now, and think that the notes Eric made (use -pthreads if using __mt_allocator) are an acceptable workaround. However, there is a bigger issue involved, which is still in progress. Actually, I'd like to broaden this out a bit since it looks like we are thinking of solving a related issue on linux as well. (See RH bugzilla, link below) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165728 Therefore, I'm suggesting I close this, and open a more general enhancement bug. That might clarify the situation for everybody. -benjamin
(In reply to comment #6) > However, there is a bigger issue involved, which is still in progress. Actually, > I'd like to broaden this out a bit since it looks like we are thinking of > solving a related issue on linux as well. (See RH bugzilla, link below) > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165728 And this has been a bug for a long time in the FSF GCC, PR 4372. I don't think there is an easy solution other than fixing glibc, just ot be thread by default and not have libpthread.
Subject: Re: solaris vs. __gthread_active_p bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > However, there is a bigger issue involved, which is still in progress. Actually, > I'd like to broaden this out a bit since it looks like we are thinking of > solving a related issue on linux as well. (See RH bugzilla, link below) > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165728 > > Therefore, I'm suggesting I close this, and open a more general enhancement bug. Sure, that sounds fine. My opinion is that, even if it means a small performance hit, we should move the weak declarations of pthread_* out of headers that can be included in user code. I understand that would be an ABI change, but you're working on a new libstdc++ ABI, so you could do it there.
> Therefore, I'm suggesting I close this, and open a more general enhancement bug. I'd rather keep it open and recategorize it as a "target" PR, since there is really a problem with __gthread_active_p on Solaris because of the Solaris/POSIX threads duality.
For ref., I've just raised PR 25409 which may possible be a dup. of this problem. It's nothing to do with Solaris, though, so I didn't just add the details here.
About to submit a patch.
Thanks for fixing this "for real" Eric. -benjamin
Subject: Bug 24071 Author: ebotcazou Date: Tue Oct 31 17:54:58 2006 New Revision: 118259 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118259 Log: PR target/24071 * gthr-posix.h (__gthread_active_p): New implementation on Solaris. * gthr-posix95.h (__gthread_active_p): Likewise. Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/gthr-posix.h trunk/gcc/gthr-posix95.h
Subject: Bug 24071 Author: ebotcazou Date: Tue Oct 31 17:55:32 2006 New Revision: 118262 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118262 Log: PR target/24071 * gthr-posix.h (__gthread_active_p): New implementation on Solaris. * gthr-posix95.h (__gthread_active_p): Likewise. Modified: branches/gcc-4_2-branch/gcc/ChangeLog branches/gcc-4_2-branch/gcc/gthr-posix.h branches/gcc-4_2-branch/gcc/gthr-posix95.h
Hopefully put to rest on mainline and 4.2 branch.