new c++ new/delete overloads need wrapping?

Fri Jul 25 08:27:45 GMT 2025

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.
>> Here are the current symbols from libc++ and how they demangle:
>> _ZdaPv	operator delete[](void*)
> _ZdaPvm	operator delete[](void*, unsigned long)
> _ZdaPvmSt11align_val_t	operator delete[](void*, unsigned long, std::align_val_t)
> _ZdaPvRKSt9nothrow_t	operator delete[](void*, std::nothrow_t const&)
> _ZdaPvSt11align_val_t	operator delete[](void*, std::align_val_t)
> _ZdaPvSt11align_val_tRKSt9nothrow_t	operator delete[](void*, std::align_val_t, std::nothrow_t const&)
> _ZdlPv	operator delete(void*)
> _ZdlPvm	operator delete(void*, unsigned long)
> _ZdlPvmSt11align_val_t	operator delete(void*, unsigned long, std::align_val_t)
> _ZdlPvRKSt9nothrow_t	operator delete(void*, std::nothrow_t const&)
> _ZdlPvSt11align_val_t	operator delete(void*, std::align_val_t)
> _ZdlPvSt11align_val_tRKSt9nothrow_t	operator delete(void*, std::align_val_t, std::nothrow_t const&)
> _Znam	operator new[](unsigned long)
> _ZnamRKSt9nothrow_t	operator new[](unsigned long, std::nothrow_t const&)
> _ZnamSt11align_val_t	operator new[](unsigned long, std::align_val_t)
> _ZnamSt11align_val_tRKSt9nothrow_t	operator new[](unsigned long, std::align_val_t, std::nothrow_t const&)
> _Znwm	operator new(unsigned long)
> _ZnwmRKSt9nothrow_t	operator new(unsigned long, std::nothrow_t const&)
> _ZnwmSt11align_val_t	operator new(unsigned long, std::align_val_t)
> _ZnwmSt11align_val_tRKSt9nothrow_t	operator new(unsigned long, std::align_val_t, std::nothrow_t const&)

Wow, these got a lot more since we started to support this back in
2009 and ported to 64 bit in 2013.
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.
Nevertheless, the code overriding the members in per_process_cxx_malloc
is living in the app (_cygwin_crt0_common.cc). If you just append members
to per_process_cxx_malloc nad implement the wrappers in cxx.cc and
libstdcxx_wrapper.cc, then old apps using the old _cygwin_crt0_common.cc
will just not see the new functions. So that should work out of the
box, shouldn't it?
Corinna