[Bug c++/36159] C++ compiler should issue a warning with missing new operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36159 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #20 from Martin Sebor --- I'm not working on this anymore.
[Bug c++/36159] C++ compiler should issue a warning with missing new operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36159 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
[Bug c++/36159] C++ compiler should issue a warning with missing new operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36159 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz ||illa/show_bug.cgi?id=6527 --- Comment #19 from Florian Weimer --- Current (unreleased) glibc usues this: # define MALLOC_ALIGNMENT (2 * SIZE_SZ < __alignof__ (long double) \ ? __alignof__ (long double) : 2 * SIZE_SZ) So the old bug https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6527 is gone. To my knowledge, this level of alignment is sufficient to cover max_align_t. These malloc changes are in principle back-portable, but they are a bit on the risky side because where the definition of MALLOC_ALIGNMENT changes, malloc allocation patterns (and eventually RSS usage) are affected.
[Bug c++/36159] C++ compiler should issue a warning with missing new operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36159 --- Comment #18 from Martin Sebor --- The link works for me. An older version of the paper is here: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3396.htm If that doesn't work for you either try searching for the paper titled Dynamic memory allocation for over-aligned data by Clark Nelson.
[Bug c++/36159] C++ compiler should issue a warning with missing new operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36159 --- Comment #17 from Marios Hadjieleftheriou --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #12) > Confirmed. As noted in bug 67911, the solution proposed for the next > version of C++ is the following: > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0035r0.html > Until it's accepted and implemented, issuing a warning would help users > avoid the trap. I happen to be working in this area so I'll see if I can > come up with something. The link posted above appears to be broken.
[Bug c++/36159] C++ compiler should issue a warning with missing new operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36159 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mhadji at gmail dot com --- Comment #16 from Martin Sebor --- *** Bug 70603 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug c++/36159] C++ compiler should issue a warning with missing new operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36159 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||b7.10110111 at gmail dot com --- Comment #15 from Martin Sebor --- *** Bug 70441 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug c++/36159] C++ compiler should issue a warning with missing new operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36159 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ilja.honkonen at helsinki dot fi --- Comment #14 from Martin Sebor --- *** Bug 60202 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug c++/36159] C++ compiler should issue a warning with missing new operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36159 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu --- *** Bug 69250 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug c++/36159] C++ compiler should issue a warning with missing new operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36159 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2015-10-10 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor --- Confirmed. As noted in bug 67911, the solution proposed for the next version of C++ is the following: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0035r0.html Until it's accepted and implemented, issuing a warning would help users avoid the trap. I happen to be working in this area so I'll see if I can come up with something.
[Bug c++/36159] C++ compiler should issue a warning with missing new operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36159 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor --- *** Bug 67911 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug c++/36159] C++ compiler should issue a warning with missing new operator
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36159 H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hayim at post dot tau.ac.il --- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-07-15 13:54:21 UTC --- *** Bug 53970 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug c++/36159] C++ compiler should issue a warning with missing new operator
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36159 H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sergey.v.maslov at intel ||dot com --- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-06-30 04:50:54 UTC --- *** Bug 49585 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug c++/36159] C++ compiler should issue a warning with missing new operator
--- Comment #8 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-04-24 02:42 --- *** Bug 43874 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||edwintorok at gmail dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36159
[Bug c++/36159] C++ compiler should issue a warning with missing new operator
--- Comment #7 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-01-09 01:09 --- We can solve it with 1. A target should define MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENT properly. 2. g++ should issue an error when the default new operator is used on a type whose alignment is greater than MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENT. 3. It is user's responsibility to provide a new operator to return a properly aligned memory. 4. g++ can assume memory return by the user-provided new operator is properly aligned. -- hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xuepeng dot guo at intel dot ||com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36159
[Bug c++/36159] C++ compiler should issue a warning with missing new operator
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-05-07 11:25 --- Subject: Re: C++ compiler should issue a warning with missing new operator On Wed, 7 May 2008, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: aligned memory. PPC LV2 returns 16byte aligned memory. PPC Linux should be returning 16byte aligned memory for the 128bit long double but from what I remember or last heard does not. There is a patch for that glibc bug http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2007-11/msg00062.html, but the glibc maintainers have not reviewed it. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36159
[Bug c++/36159] C++ compiler should issue a warning with missing new operator
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-06 16:11 --- Actually we (Sony) have come up with a solution but not much as come about with it though. If you read Trevor's proposal, you would have found we did come up with one. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36159
[Bug c++/36159] C++ compiler should issue a warning with missing new operator
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-05-06 16:28 --- Trevor, can you scale down your original proposal just to issue an error when there is no class-specific operator new for a type with an alignment greater than what malloc() guarantees? It will be programmer's responsibility to provide appropriate new operator. -- hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tsmigiel at gcc dot gnu dot ||org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36159
[Bug c++/36159] C++ compiler should issue a warning with missing new operator
--- Comment #3 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2008-05-07 04:21 --- How is the compiler supposed to know about what alignment malloc can produce? How can it know that ::operator new doesn't increase the alignment automatically? W. -- bangerth at dealii dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bangerth at dealii dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36159
[Bug c++/36159] C++ compiler should issue a warning with missing new operator
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-05-07 04:56 --- The default new operator is implemented within gcc. It should be possible to let g++ know the alignment returned by the new operator. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36159
[Bug c++/36159] C++ compiler should issue a warning with missing new operator
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-07 05:00 --- (In reply to comment #4) The default new operator is implemented within gcc. It should be possible to let g++ know the alignment returned by the new operator. The default one is but the user can override it as defined by the C++ standard. Also different OS's return different alignment. Mac OS X (darwin) returns the 16 byte alignment on both PowerPC and x86. While x86 Linux returns 8 byte aligned memory. PPC LV2 returns 16byte aligned memory. PPC Linux should be returning 16byte aligned memory for the 128bit long double but from what I remember or last heard does not. -- Pinski -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36159
