[Bug libstdc++/77691] [7 regression] experimental/memory_resource/resource_adaptor.cc FAILs

2017-03-14 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691

Richard Biener  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Priority|P3  |P4

[Bug libstdc++/77691] [7 regression] experimental/memory_resource/resource_adaptor.cc FAILs

2016-09-22 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691

--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely  ---
Presumably caused by r240187 or r240192

[Bug libstdc++/77691] [7 regression] experimental/memory_resource/resource_adaptor.cc FAILs

2016-09-22 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691

--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE  ---
> --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely  ---
> Presumably caused by r240187 or r240192

I think I had r240187 (or a slightly earlier variant thereof) in my
r240175 tree when bootstrapping on 20160916.

Rainer

[Bug libstdc++/77691] [7 regression] experimental/memory_resource/resource_adaptor.cc FAILs

2016-09-22 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691

Jonathan Wakely  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
   Last reconfirmed||2016-09-22
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely  ---
Oh, except that it might now be using aligned_alloc (or posix_memalign) instead
of malloc.

[Bug libstdc++/77691] [7 regression] experimental/memory_resource/resource_adaptor.cc FAILs

2016-09-22 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691

--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely  ---
I think that means malloc is not returning memory suitably aligned for
max_align_t.

[Bug libstdc++/77691] [7 regression] experimental/memory_resource/resource_adaptor.cc FAILs

2016-09-22 Thread ro at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691

Rainer Orth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|--- |7.0