This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Binary compatibility between an old static libstdc++ and a new dynamic one

On 13 April 2017 at 15:06, Jonathan Wakely <> wrote:
> On 13 April 2017 at 14:26, Guilherme Quentel Melo wrote:
>> Thanks for replying Jonathan
>>> It's not supported to mix C++11 code compiled with 4.x and GCC 5+, in
>>> any way, whether linking dynamically or statically.
>> OK, but this is true even when the API is C? In this case no c++ structure
>> is ever passed to mesa. If mesa was compiled with the new ABI, I should
>> still be fine, right?
> Right.
>>> If you're only using C++98 (and of course only using the old COW
>>> std::string in the code compiled with GCC 5+)
>> Yeah, my gcc 5.x has _GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=0 in the specs
>>> This of course assumes both GCC versions are configured to be
>>> compatible, i.e. you're not using --enable-fully-dynamic-string
>> I'm not using many configure options, only
>> --enable-version-specific-runtime-libs --disable-multilib
>> So if this should work I will try to investigate it further, but I'm not sure
>> what else I can do.
>> gdb did not help much because if I recompile mesa without optimizations
>> the crash does not happen.
>> Actually disabling only inline optimization also makes the crash go away.
>> Given that all invalid free stacks shown by valgrind contain inline functions
>> from basic_string.h does that ring you any bells?
>> Any other tips for debugging this?
> I'm not sure what to check. If the symbols are equivalent then it
> shouldn't matter whether a given symbol is inlined using the GCC 4.8.5
> code or comes from the 5.4.0 shared library. But apparently it does,
> so either the new library is not backwards compatible, or something
> else is going on.

So I finally got some time to further investigate this issue and I
found (hopefully)
the problem. In case someone find similar problem this is what I've done:

- Rebuilt stock gcc 4.8.5 and 5.1.0 on CentOS 6 without stripping binaries
- Created a dummy FooEngineBuilder on llvm/ExecutionEngine/ExecutionEngine.h
- Rebuilt both mesa and llvm-mesa-private on CentOS 7 with gcc 4.8.5 and debug

FooEngineBuilder is just a class with a std::string member and two methods to
set the string:

    class FooEngineBuilder {
      std::string MCPU;
      FooEngineBuilder &setMCPUFromHeader() {
        std::string mymcpu;
        mymcpu = "my_mcpu";
        MCPU.assign(mymcpu.begin(), mymcpu.end());
      FooEngineBuilder &setMCPUFromSource();

Using this class on mesa this crashes:

    FooEngineBuilder foo_builder;

and this does not:

    FooEngineBuilder foo_builder;

What happens is that MCPU is an empty string pointing to
std::string::_Rep::_S_empty_rep_storage defined on the static libstdc++
(gcc 4.8.5). When assigning MCPU from the header, the _M_dispose method
from the dynamic library (gcc 5.1.0) is called.

_M_dispose only destroy the string if it's not a reference to

    if (__builtin_expect(this != &_S_empty_rep(), false))

The problem is that *this* is pointing to a different
std::string::_Rep::_S_empty_rep_storage than &_S_empty_rep(), making
_M_dispose try to delete a static std::string member.

In summary the problem is that static variables are being defined twice,
exactly why STB_GNU_UNIQUE was created:

The llvm library is correctly defining the symbols as unique:

    $ objdump -C -T /usr/lib64/ | grep _S_empty_rep_st>
    000000000405be20 u    DO .bss   0000000000000020  Base
    000000000405bde0 u    DO .bss   0000000000000020  Base
std::basic_string<wchar_t, std::char_traits<wchar_t>,
std::allocator<wchar_t> >::_Rep::_S_empty_rep_storage

But the libstdc++ compiled on CentOS 6 is not:

    $ objdump -C -T $LIBSTDCXX5 | grep _S_empty_rep_storage
    000000000038c300 g    DO .bss   0000000000000020  GLIBCXX_3.4
    000000000038c320 g    DO .bss   0000000000000020  GLIBCXX_3.4
std::basic_string<wchar_t, std::char_traits<wchar_t>,
std::allocator<wchar_t> >::_Rep::_S_empty_rep_storage

So in conclusion when building gcc I need to make sure that is
defining STB_GNU_UNIQUE symbols.

Maybe this should be mentioned on some gcc/libstdc++ docs related to binary

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]