Win32AttachOperationRequest seems to be using global new?

[Alexey Menkov]

Sorry, didn't noticed the message before.

Yes, this is oversight.
Filed https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8344262
Thank you for the finding Julian.

--alex

On 14.11.2024 0:28, David Holmes wrote:
> That didn't work so cc'ing serviceability-dev
> 
> I think it was just an oversight.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> On 14/11/2024 6:24 pm, David Holmes wrote:
>> It was added by JDK-8339289 so cc'ing Alex.
>>
>> David
>>
>> On 14/11/2024 5:33 pm, Julian Waters wrote:
>>> Bumping, I'm still curious about this issue
>>>
>>> best regards,
>>> Julian
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 10:20 PM Julian Waters 
>>> <tanksherman27 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Win32AttachOperationRequest is created via new, but doesn't specify 
>>>> a custom new inside the class definition. The result seems to be 
>>>> that we use global new on Windows:
>>>>
>>>>    for (int i=0; i<max_enqueued_operations; i++) {
>>>>      Win32AttachOperationRequest* op = new 
>>>> Win32AttachOperationRequest();
>>>>        f1: b9 28 0d 00 00       mov    ecx,0xd28
>>>>        f6: e8 00 00 00 00       call   fb 
>>>> <Win32AttachListener::init()+0x7b>
>>>> f7: IMAGE_REL_AMD64_REL32 operator new(unsigned long long)
>>>>
>>>> Stepping away from gcc's objdump and using the Microsoft dumpbin 
>>>> alongside cl.exe instead, the result is this:
>>>>
>>>>    0000000000000264: B9 28 0D 00 00     mov         ecx,0D28h
>>>>    0000000000000269: E8 00 00 00 00     call        ??2 at YAPEAX_K@Z
>>>>    000000000000026E: 48 89 44 24 28     mov         qword ptr 
>>>> [rsp+28h],rax
>>>>    0000000000000273: 48 83 7C 24 28 00  cmp         qword ptr 
>>>> [rsp+28h],0
>>>>    0000000000000279: 74 11              je          000000000000028C
>>>>    000000000000027B: 48 8B 4C 24 28     mov         rcx,qword ptr 
>>>> [rsp+28h]
>>>>    0000000000000280: E8 00 00 00 00     call        ?? 
>>>> 0Win32AttachOperationRequest@@QEAA at XZ
>>>>
>>>> undname "??2 at YAPEAX_K@Z"
>>>> Microsoft (R) C++ Name Undecorator
>>>> Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
>>>>
>>>> Undecoration of :- "??2 at YAPEAX_K@Z"
>>>> is :- "void * __ptr64 __cdecl operator new(unsigned __int64)"
>>>>
>>>> undname "??0Win32AttachOperationRequest@@QEAA at XZ"
>>>> Microsoft (R) C++ Name Undecorator
>>>> Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
>>>>
>>>> Undecoration of :- "??0Win32AttachOperationRequest@@QEAA at XZ"
>>>> is :- "public: __cdecl 
>>>> Win32AttachOperationRequest::Win32AttachOperationRequest(void) __ptr64"
>>>>
>>>> Visual Studio, lacking the nm utility, obviously doesn't catch this. 
>>>> What was more surprising is that the gcc Link Time check also fails 
>>>> to catch it as well. I had to manually check the output of nm after 
>>>> an unrelated failure and happened to stumble across the symbols 
>>>> _Znwy and _ZdlPvy which both correspond to
>>>>
>>>> operator new(unsigned long long)
>>>> operator delete(void*, unsigned long long)
>>>>
>>>> The delete can be ignored, it's the result of a bug on my 
>>>> experimental branch (It was first discovered there, then I tested it 
>>>> on master). I'm more interested about the new, since it seems to be 
>>>> violating a HotSpot rule. Is this an intentional exception to the 
>>>> rule, or an oversight?
>>>>
>>>> best regards,
>>>> Julian
>