This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug libstdc++/64535] Emergency buffer for exception allocation too small
- From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:34:29 +0000
- Subject: [Bug libstdc++/64535] Emergency buffer for exception allocation too small
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-64535-4 at http dot gcc dot gnu dot org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64535
--- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64535
>
> --- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Can't you use a .bss object for the initial case, so you don't malloc anything
> in the ctor unless user requests something larger than that?
Is there a non-zeroed .bss section? I think using dynamically allocated
memory might be cheaper.
But sure - it was a .bss object previously (four actually).
> That way "freeing" that would be handled in most cases. And I assume you
> really can't dlclose libstdc++ while other threads are handling exceptions,
> because then those libraries should use libstdc++ entry points and either would
> need to be dlclosed too, or libstdc++ wouldn't be really unmapped.
Ok, so what's the real issue then with the destructor? Don't we destroy
the global IO and locale stuff as well?