new c++ new/delete overloads need wrapping?

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul 25 11:05, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2025, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin wrote:
> 
> > On Jul 24 22:41, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin wrote:
> > > I was looking into C++ new/delete --wrap linker options, and noticed that
> > > in a quick test the wrapper for delete was not being called.  This was
> > > because delete is being compiled to _ZdlPvm and that symbol is not present
> > > in the --wrap arguments in the GCC spec, and is not part of the
> > > per_process_cxx_malloc struct.  I'm not seeing anything in that cxx_malloc
> > > struct like a size or version number, so I don't know a good way to
> > > extend it given that it is part of the startup code linked into every
> > > binary.
> > >
> > But first I have to tell you that I'm fuzzy on how this exactly is
> > working together.  I can't tell you how this affects GCC or LD.
> 
> Here's my understanding so far:
> GCC's spec for linking on Cygwin includes several --wrap X, one for each
> of these symbols.  What this parameter does in LD is that any references
> to symbol X are rewritten to __wrap_X, and a definition of X is rewritten
> to __real_X.  The Cygwin DLL exports the __wrap_X symbols, so any callers
> will end up there.
> 
> In order to detect attempts to override the symbols, the Cygwin startup
> code defines weak symbols for them with asm redirecting to the __real_X
> names, and initializes a struct with pointers to them.  These will be NULL
> if the symbols are not defined.  Interestingly, this seems to not count
> the jump stubs when the symbols are pulled in from a DLL.  (Neither of
> these things are true right now with LLD... Bugs, I guess).  This struct
> is then merged and copied to the Cygwin DLL's struct, which is used to
> dispatch calls in the __wrap_X functions.
> 
> As such, I believe that Cygwin would need to be updated first to provide
> the __wrap_X functions, and then GCC would need to be updated to add the
> --wrap X linker parameters because that would then reference those
> symbols.  I believe GCC after that change would be incompatible with
> Cygwin before the new symbols are exported, if those symbols are
> referenced (and I was seeing one of the new delete symbols referenced by a
> simple delete p; of a scalar, so it may be something a newer now-default
> C++ version does).

Unless there's some automatism referencing the __wrap_X functions even
if the --wrap option isn't present, I don't see this incompatibility as
much of a problem.  We're trying to maintain backward compat, but that
doesn't mean an executable created under  and for a newer Cygwin DLL
has to run under an older DLL.


Corinna