8

Yesterday I ran into misery which took me 24 hours of frustration. The problem boiled down to unexpected crashes occurring on random basis. To complicate things, debugging reports had absolutely random pattern as well. To complicate it even more, all debugging traces were leading to either random Qt sources or native DLLs, i.e. proving every time that the issue is rather not on my side.

Here you are a few examples of such lovely reports:

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x0000000077864324 in ntdll!RtlAppendStringToString () from C:\Windows\system32\ntdll.dll
(gdb) bt
#0 0x0000000077864324 in ntdll!RtlAppendStringToString () from C:\Windows\system32\ntdll.dll
#1 0x000000002efc0230 in ?? ()
#2 0x0000000002070005 in ?? ()
#3 0x000000002efc0000 in ?? ()
#4 0x000000007787969f in ntdll!RtlIsValidHandle () from C:\Windows\system32\ntdll.dll
#5 0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()

warning: HEAP: Free Heap block 307e5950 modified at 307e59c0 after it was freed
Program received signal SIGTRAP, Trace/breakpoint trap.
0x00000000778bf0b2 in ntdll!ExpInterlockedPopEntrySListFault16 () from C:\Windows\system32\ntdll.dll
(gdb) bt
#0 0x00000000778bf0b2 in ntdll!ExpInterlockedPopEntrySListFault16 () from C:\Windows\system32\ntdll.dll
#1 0x000000007786fd34 in ntdll!RtlIsValidHandle () from C:\Windows\system32\ntdll.dll
#2 0x0000000077910d20 in ntdll!RtlGetLastNtStatus () from C:\Windows\system32\ntdll.dll
#3 0x00000000307e5950 in ?? ()
#4 0x00000000307e59c0 in ?? ()
#5 0x00000000ffffffff in ?? ()
#6 0x0000000000220f10 in ?? ()
#7 0x0000000077712d60 in WaitForMultipleObjectsEx () from C:\Windows\system32\kernel32.dll
#8 0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x0000000000a9678a in QBasicAtomicInt::ref (this=0x8) at ../../include/QtCore/../../../qt-src/src/corelib/arch/qatomic_x86_64.h:121
121 : "memory");
(gdb) bt
#0 0x0000000000a9678a in QBasicAtomicInt::ref (this=0x8) at ../../include/QtCore/../../../qt-src/src/corelib/arch/qatomic_x86_64.h:121
#1 0x00000000009df08e in QVariant::QVariant (this=0x21e4d0, p=...) at d:/Distributions/qt-src/src/corelib/kernel/qvariant.cpp:1426
#2 0x0000000000b4dde9 in QList<QVariant>::value (this=0x323bd480, i=1) at ../../include/QtCore/../../../qt-src/src/corelib/tools/qlist.h:666
#3 0x00000000009ccff7 in QObject::property (this=0x3067e900,
name=0xa9d042a <QCDEStyle::drawPrimitive(QStyle::PrimitiveElement, QStyleOption const*, QPainter*, QWidget const*) const::pts5+650> "_q_stylerect")
at d:/Distributions/qt-src/src/corelib/kernel/qobject.cpp:3742
#4 0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()

As you can see this stuff is pretty nasty, it gives one no useful information. But, there was one thing I didn't pay attention to. It was a weird warning during compilation which is also hard to catch with an eye:

In file included from d:/Libraries/x64/MinGW-w64/4.7.2/Qt/4.8.4/include/QtCore/qsharedpointer.h:50:0,
                 from d:/Libraries/x64/MinGW-w64/4.7.2/Qt/4.8.4/include/QtCore/QSharedPointer:1,
                 from ../../../../source/libraries/Project/sources/Method.hpp:4,
                 from ../../../../source/libraries/Project/sources/Slot.hpp:4,
                 from ../../../../source/libraries/Project/sources/Slot.cpp:1:
d:/Libraries/x64/MinGW-w64/4.7.2/Qt/4.8.4/include/QtCore/qsharedpointer_impl.h: In instantiation of 'static void QtSharedPointer::ExternalRefCount<T>::deref(QtSharedPointer::ExternalRefCount<T>::Data*, T*) [with T = Project::Method::Private; QtSharedPointer::ExternalRefCount<T>::Data = QtSharedPointer::ExternalRefCountData]':
d:/Libraries/x64/MinGW-w64/4.7.2/Qt/4.8.4/include/QtCore/qsharedpointer_impl.h:336:11:   required from 'void QtSharedPointer::ExternalRefCount<T>::deref() [with T = Project::Method::Private]'
d:/Libraries/x64/MinGW-w64/4.7.2/Qt/4.8.4/include/QtCore/qsharedpointer_impl.h:401:38:   required from 'QtSharedPointer::ExternalRefCount<T>::~ExternalRefCount() [with T = Project::Method::Private]'
d:/Libraries/x64/MinGW-w64/4.7.2/Qt/4.8.4/include/QtCore/qsharedpointer_impl.h:466:7:   required from here
d:/Libraries/x64/MinGW-w64/4.7.2/Qt/4.8.4/include/QtCore/qsharedpointer_impl.h:342:21: warning: possible problem detected in invocation of delete operator: [enabled by default]
d:/Libraries/x64/MinGW-w64/4.7.2/Qt/4.8.4/include/QtCore/qsharedpointer_impl.h:337:28: warning: 'value' has incomplete type [enabled by default]

Actually, I turned to this warning only as a last resort because in such a desperate pursuit to find a bug, the code was already infected with logging to death literally.

After reading it carefully, I recalled that, for instance, if one uses std::unique_ptr or std::scoped_ptr for Pimpl - one should certainly provide desctructor, otherwise the code won't even compile. However, I also remember that std::shared_ptr does not care about destructor and works fine without it. It was another reason why I didn't pay attention to this strange warning. Long story short, when I added destructor, this random crashing stopped. Looks like Qt's QSharedPointer has some design flaws compared to std::shared_ptr. I guess it would be better, if Qt developers transformed this warning into error because debugging marathons like that are simply not worth one's time, effort and nerves.

My questions are:

  1. What's wrong with QSharedPointer? Why destructor is so vital?
  2. Why crashing happened when there was no destructor? These objects (which are using Pimpl + QSharedPointer) are created on stack and no other objects have access to them after their death. However, crashing happened during some random period of time after their death.
  3. Has anyone ran into issues like that before? Please, share your experience.
  4. Are there other pitfalls like that in Qt - ones that I must know about for sure to stay safe in future?

Hopefully, these questions and my post in general will help others to avoid the hell I've been to for the past 24 hours.

demonplus
  • 5,036
  • 11
  • 41
  • 56
Alexander Shukaev
  • 15,556
  • 8
  • 64
  • 81
  • 2
    I would generally recommend using the flag -Werror to turn all warnings into errors. It does require some work to sort out all warnings, but I have found it invaluable for alerting me to potential issues (whether you use Qt or not). – cgmb Mar 16 '13 at 04:49
  • 1
    The difference between QSharedPtr and shard_ptr is in how and when the code doing the deletion of T* is instantiated - and that code of course needs to know the declaration of T to call the dtor. The cure is to take warnings seriously (as suggested by Slavik81). – Frank Osterfeld Mar 16 '13 at 09:24

2 Answers2

3

The issue has been worked around in Qt 5, see https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,26974

The compiler calling the wrong destructor or assuming a different memory layout probably lead to some kind of memory corruption. I'd say a compiler should give an error for this issue and not a warning.

capisce
  • 591
  • 5
  • 5
1

You'll run into a similar issue with std::unique_ptr, which can also cause broken destructors if used with an incomplete type. The fix is pretty trivial, of course - I declare a constructor for the class, then define it in the implementation file as

MyClass::~MyClass() = default;

The reason that this is an issue for std::unique_ptr but not std::shared_ptr is that the destructor is part of the type of the former, but is a member of the latter.

Toby Speight
  • 23,550
  • 47
  • 57
  • 84