Ping. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg03368.html
On 27.11.2014 10:42, Patrick Wollgast wrote: > On 12.11.2014 19:40, Kai Tietz wrote: >> TerminateProcess is actually bad, as it doesn't call any of the atexit >> handlers. You simply nuke the process off. For cygwin this behavior >> is inacceptable. Why a classical abort, or a classical exit call >> cause for you that issues? It seems to me more related to some other >> thing you try to paper over by this. >> > > It turns out the test program made some trouble. I rewrote it to the > attached program (virtual_func_test_min_AW.cpp). I changed obstack.c and > vtv_rts.cc to the C-runtime functions. For testing I used a program just > containing an abort and all three tests in the attached test program. > The call stack, passed parameters and behavior matched at the crucial > parts (tested again on MinGW 32/64bit). > >> >>> Regarding the question, why I reimplemented mprotect, I also haven't >>> changed anything in the patch but answered the question. >> >> And this doesn't make it better. It is present in the static part of >> libgcc. Have you tried to declare it with extern "C" (for C++ case) >> and simply use it? >> Cygwin provides its own version too. So there seems to me no real >> need to re-implement it. >> > > You're right. I was stuck with the idea of importing it dynamically, but > changed it to extern "C" now. > > Regards, > Patrick >
