[cfe-dev] [LibC++] Bug in implementation of 'std::shared_ptr'
Martin J. O'Riordan via cfe-dev
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon May 1 05:18:55 PDT 2017
Thanks Anton,
Yes I am building the library, with '-frtti', but I was running the test with '-fno-rtti'. Problem was that I was passing '_LIBCPP_BUILD_STATIC' when building the library and running the test. Despite the name, I had not copped this was a library build-time only option (the others are '_LIBCPP_BUILDING_*' and thought it was for static library usage.
MartinO
-----Original Message-----
From: Anton Korobeynikov [mailto:anton at korobeynikov.info]
Sent: 01 May 2017 11:16
To: Martin J. O'Riordan <martin.oriordan at movidius.com>
Cc: Clang Dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LibC++] Bug in implementation of 'std::shared_ptr'
Martin,
You're seeing the problem with __shared_weak_count::__get_deleter(),
however, it depends on both _LIBCPP_BUILD_STATIC and -fno-rtti settings. The former could only be set when building libc++ itself and not the user applications.
So, how the things appeared to be broken in your case provided that you built libc++ with RTTI enabled?
There should be no issues wrt __shared_ptr_pointer::__get_deleter
because it's not exported from libc++.a. Same for <functional> stuff.
On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 9:32 PM, Martin J. O'Riordan <martin.oriordan at movidius.com> wrote:
> Hi Anton,
>
> Sorry, I did 'Reply' instead of 'Reply All'
>
> Actually, I should've added that the '__shared_ptr_pointer::__get_deleter' is also similarly affected, but is not qualified by '_LIBCPP_BUILD_STATIC', and that the same is true for the 'functional implementation although I have no test cases yet which illustrate this as a problem.
>
> Thanks,
>
> MartinO
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin J. O'Riordan [mailto:martin.oriordan at movidius.com]
> Sent: 30 April 2017 20:22
> To: 'Anton Korobeynikov' <anton at korobeynikov.info>
> Subject: RE: [cfe-dev] [LibC++] Bug in implementation of 'std::shared_ptr'
>
> Exactly. When building the LibC++ library, '_LIBCPP_BUILD_STATIC' is defined.
>
> But this means that the ABI for the 'vtable' is now a function of RTTI enabled vs disabled.
>
> MartinO
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anton Korobeynikov [mailto:anton at korobeynikov.info]
> Sent: 30 April 2017 18:39
> To: Martin J. O'Riordan <martin.oriordan at movidius.com>
> Cc: Clang Dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LibC++] Bug in implementation of 'std::shared_ptr'
>
> Martin,
>
> How the '_LIBCPP_BUILD_STATIC' define got set in your case? It should only appear when building libc++ itself.
>
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Martin J. O'Riordan via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> I have a test that has been failing for a long time, and finally got
>> around to investigating it. The test is really simple:
>>
>>
>>
>> #include <iostream>
>>
>> #include <memory>
>>
>>
>>
>> struct Test {
>>
>> int n;
>>
>> Test(int x) : n(x) { std::cerr << "Creating " << n << std::endl; }
>>
>> ~Test() { std::cerr << "Deleting " << n << std::endl; }
>>
>> };
>>
>>
>>
>> int main () {
>>
>> std::shared_ptr<Test> x(std::make_shared<Test>(42));
>>
>> x.reset();
>>
>> std::cerr << "Completed " << std::endl;
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> but it crashes immediately after printing the message from the
>> destructor, and before the message in ‘main’.
>>
>>
>>
>> After investigating, I found that the test works perfectly with RTTI
>> enabled, but crashes if it is disabled which puzzled me. My LibC++
>> library is built with RTTI enabled as instructed on ‘libcxx.llvm.org’
>> which says that the library must be built with RTTI enabled, though
>> it may be used with RTTI disabled.
>>
>>
>>
>> What I found was that the ‘vtable’ for the ‘shared_ptr’
>> specialisation is different depending on whether RTTI is enabled or
>> disabled. With RTTI disabled it is:
>>
>>
>>
>> _ZTVNSt3__120__shared_ptr_emplaceI4TestNS_9allocatorIS1_EEEE:
>>
>> .word 0
>>
>> .word 0
>>
>> .word _ZNSt3__120__shared_ptr_emplaceI4TestNS_9allocatorIS1_EEED1Ev
>>
>> .word _ZNSt3__120__shared_ptr_emplaceI4TestNS_9allocatorIS1_EEED0Ev
>>
>> .word
>> _ZNSt3__120__shared_ptr_emplaceI4TestNS_9allocatorIS1_EEE16__on_zero_
>> s
>> haredEv
>>
>> .word
>> _ZNSt3__120__shared_ptr_emplaceI4TestNS_9allocatorIS1_EEE21__on_zero_
>> s
>> hared_weakEv
>>
>>
>>
>> but with RTTI enabled it is:
>>
>>
>>
>> _ZTVNSt3__120__shared_ptr_emplaceI4TestNS_9allocatorIS1_EEEE:
>>
>> .word 0
>>
>> .word _ZTINSt3__120__shared_ptr_emplaceI4TestNS_9allocatorIS1_EEEE
>>
>> .word _ZNSt3__120__shared_ptr_emplaceI4TestNS_9allocatorIS1_EEED1Ev
>>
>> .word _ZNSt3__120__shared_ptr_emplaceI4TestNS_9allocatorIS1_EEED0Ev
>>
>> .word
>> _ZNSt3__120__shared_ptr_emplaceI4TestNS_9allocatorIS1_EEE16__on_zero_
>> s
>> haredEv
>>
>> .word _ZNKSt3__119__shared_weak_count13__get_deleterERKSt9type_info
>>
>> .word
>> _ZNSt3__120__shared_ptr_emplaceI4TestNS_9allocatorIS1_EEE21__on_zero_
>> s
>> hared_weakEv
>>
>>
>>
>> In the library, the implementation (in ‘memory.cpp’ compiler with
>> ‘-frtti’) is attempting to call the function ‘__on_zero_shared_weak’,
>> but using offset 24, and the ‘vtable’ emitted in the test case
>> (compiled with ‘-fno-rtti’) has this function at offset 20.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is caused by the following lines in ‘<memory>’:
>>
>>
>>
>> // Define the function out only if we build static libc++ without RTTI.
>>
>> // Otherwise we may break clients who need to compile their
>> projects with
>>
>> // -fno-rtti and yet link against a libc++.dylib compiled
>>
>> // without -fno-rtti.
>>
>> #if !defined(_LIBCPP_NO_RTTI) || !defined(_LIBCPP_BUILD_STATIC)
>>
>> virtual const void* __get_deleter(const type_info&) const
>> _NOEXCEPT;
>>
>> #endif
>>
>>
>>
>> and because the function is virtual, the layout of the ‘vtable’ is
>> different between RTTI enabled and disabled (we are building a static
>> library, so ‘_LIBCPP_BUILD_STATIC’ is true).
>>
>>
>>
>> There are a couple of places in ‘<memory>’ and ‘memory.cpp’ where
>> this happens (always with ‘__get_deleter’), but after sanity checking
>> the other headers, I see that ‘<functional>’ and ‘<__functional_03>’
>> also have similar issues where the layout of the ‘vtable’ is
>> different depending on whether RTTI is enabled or not; though I don’t have any tests which show this.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don’t know what the best fix is for this because it was clearly
>> introduced to address some issue with dynamic libraries, but locally
>> I have decided to always define ‘__get_deleter’, and make its implementation return ‘nullptr’
>> when RTTI is disabled. This preserves the ‘vtable’ layout
>> independent of RTTI.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> MartinO
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>
>
>
>
> --
> With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
> Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University
>
--
With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
Department of Statistical Modelling, Saint Petersburg State University
More information about the cfe-dev
mailing list