Mon Oct 25 23:36:50 GMT 2021
Ken Brown wrote:
> On 10/25/2021 5:29 PM, Mark Geisert wrote:
>> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Oct 25 08:35, Ken Brown wrote:
>>>> On 10/25/2021 4:59 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>>> Has the thread already been started at this point?
>>>> Yes, here's the backtrace of that thread:
>>>> Thread 5 (Thread 9692.0x7c4c):
>>>> #0 0x00000001801934f9 in sys_alloc (m=0x18036f860 <_gm_>, nb=1040) at
>>>> #1 0x0000000180196b96 in dlmalloc (bytes=1024) at
>>>> #2 0x00000001801993e1 in dlrealloc (oldmem=0x0, bytes=1024) at
>>>> #3 0x00000001800e8eed in realloc (p=0x0, size=1024) at
>>> Er... huh? So both threads are in a malloc function? This shouldn't
>>> have happened, given the clunky muto guarding malloc calls. This is
>>> really strange. Why's the muto not working here?
>> Is it possible both threads have executed malloc_init()?
>> If so, the second one would reinit the muto.
> Or does the fifo_reader thread call a malloc function before the main thread has
> called malloc_init()? This would presumably cause __malloc_lock() to fail, but
> there's no error check.
If there's a global constructor involved, that is known to happen. Constructors
are run from dll_crt0_0(), before malloc_init() is called from dll_crt0_1(). See
dcrt0.cc for the details.
More information about the Cygwin-developers