using C++ STL containers in GCC/gfortran source code

[Pedro Alves]

On 12/17/2016 10:58 AM, Janus Weil wrote:
> 2016-12-16 19:46 GMT+01:00 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>:
> So, it seems like it would be a good idea to follow your suggestion
> from PR 78822:
> 
> 
>> You can replace the global operator new/new[] to call xmalloc instead of malloc.
>> Then memory allocation by std::string etc. ends up in xmalloc -> xmalloc_failed.
>> That's what I did for GDB:
>>
>> https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=blob;f=gdb/common/new-op.c;h=c67239cbe87c1f7e22e234a1a2cc2920f9ed22a4;hb=HEAD
> 
> I'm certainly not the right person to implement this in GCC, though
> (and I'll probably discard my idea of using std::string for PR 78822
> and follow the alternative implementation from comment 14).
> 
> But I think that, given the amount of STL containers already used in
> GCC, it should definitely be clarified whether this is necessary ...

TBC, STL containers are a red herring here, and a bit orthogonal.

The root issue is that any "new" expression that calls the
global (non-placement-new, non-class-specific) operator new/new[]
in GCC is "unprotected" and inconsistent with xmalloc already,
because the default operator new/new[] calls malloc.

I.e., "new" expressions are already "unprotected" in exactly the
same way as allocations inside STL containers.

Some classes have class-specific 'operator new' implementations (grep
for "operator new"), but seems to me many don't.  E.g., grep
for " = new":

  ...
  auto-profile.c:    autofdo_source_profile *map = new autofdo_source_profile ();
  auto-profile.c:  function_instance *s = new function_instance (name, head_count);
  auto-profile.c:  afdo_string_table = new string_table ();
  spellcheck.c:  edit_distance_t *v0 = new edit_distance_t[len_s + 1];
  ...

new[] calls I think are more likely to cause trouble due to run-time variable
size, though non-array new calls can certainly fail too.

You should be able to trigger/see the issue by just hacking some:

   char *p = new char [-1];

somewhere in the compiler.  The compiler will likely crash with something
like:

terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::bad_alloc'
  what():  std::bad_alloc
Aborted (core dumped)

... instead of the xmalloc_failed message.

and then compare with a "xmalloc (-1)" call.

TBC, replacing global operator new is perfectly defined/valid C++.
The overloads in question are specified as "replaceable".  See: 

  http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/new/operator_new

Thanks,
Pedro Alves