Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 8:31 AM, Marc Glisse wrote: > Hello, > > @@ -4247,9 +4248,20 @@ build_operator_new_call (tree fnname, vec va_gc> **args, > we disregard block-scope declarations of "operator new". */ >fns = lookup_function_nonclass (fnname, *args,

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

Hello, @@ -4247,9 +4248,20 @@ build_operator_new_call (tree fnname, vec **args, we disregard block-scope declarations of "operator new". */ fns = lookup_function_nonclass (fnname, *args, /*block_p=*/false); + if (align_arg) +{ + vec* align_args +

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On 16/09/16 13:12 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 16/09/16 11:56 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 16/09/16 11:37 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote: Is the division (by a non-constant denominator) really necessary? Probably not, but I've asked the committee for clarification what this function should

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

Hi Jonathan, > I've committed the patch now, to fix the failures for Solaris. I'll > revisit it when I get clarification from the committee about invalid > alignment arguments. Solaris bootstraps with the revised patch included just completed successfully. Thanks. Rainer --

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On 16/09/16 11:56 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 16/09/16 11:37 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote: On Fri, 16 Sep 2016, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 16/09/16 09:04 +0200, Rainer Orth wrote: Hi Jason, OK, one more: this works just fine on both sparc-sun-solaris2.12 and i386-pc-solaris2.12. Once

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On 16/09/16 11:37 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote: On Fri, 16 Sep 2016, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 16/09/16 09:04 +0200, Rainer Orth wrote: Hi Jason, OK, one more: this works just fine on both sparc-sun-solaris2.12 and i386-pc-solaris2.12. Once Jonathan's patch to heed aligned_alloc's

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 16/09/16 09:04 +0200, Rainer Orth wrote: Hi Jason, OK, one more: this works just fine on both sparc-sun-solaris2.12 and i386-pc-solaris2.12. Once Jonathan's patch to heed aligned_alloc's requirement on size being a multiple of alignment is

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On 16/09/16 09:04 +0200, Rainer Orth wrote: Hi Jason, OK, one more: this works just fine on both sparc-sun-solaris2.12 and i386-pc-solaris2.12. Once Jonathan's patch to heed aligned_alloc's requirement on size being a multiple of alignment is in, all is fine on Solaris. I've got a

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On 16 September 2016 at 09:04, Rainer Orth wrote: > Hi Jason, > >> OK, one more: > > this works just fine on both sparc-sun-solaris2.12 and > i386-pc-solaris2.12. > > Once Jonathan's patch to heed aligned_alloc's requirement on size being > a multiple of alignment

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

Hi Jason, > OK, one more: this works just fine on both sparc-sun-solaris2.12 and i386-pc-solaris2.12. Once Jonathan's patch to heed aligned_alloc's requirement on size being a multiple of alignment is in, all is fine on Solaris. Thanks. Rainer --

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

OK, one more: On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On 15 September 2016 at 11:26, Rainer Orth > wrote: >> Hi Jason, >> I confirm no change on arm* either. On aarch64, gen-attrs-[25]1.C, and devirt-33 now

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On 15 September 2016 at 11:26, Rainer Orth wrote: > Hi Jason, > >>> I confirm no change on arm* either. >>> On aarch64, gen-attrs-[25]1.C, and devirt-33 now work. >>> name-clash11.C still fails on both targets >> >> Ah, I needed to remove the limit on field

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

Hi Jason, >> I confirm no change on arm* either. >> On aarch64, gen-attrs-[25]1.C, and devirt-33 now work. >> name-clash11.C still fails on both targets > > Ah, I needed to remove the limit on field alignment as well. This > seems to fix things. The failures are gone on Solaris/SPARC

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On 14 September 2016 at 14:11, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> On Sep 13 2016, Jason Merrill wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Andreas Schwab

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On 14 September 2016 at 14:11, Andreas Schwab wrote: > On Sep 13 2016, Jason Merrill wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Andreas Schwab >> wrote: >>> On Sep 13 2016, Jason Merrill wrote: >>> Does

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On Sep 13 2016, Jason Merrill wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> On Sep 13 2016, Jason Merrill wrote: >> >>> Does this help? >> >> Unfortunatly no. > > It occurs to me that this function doesn't need to

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

Hi Jonathan, >>* For 64-bit, I get >> >>+FAIL: g++.dg/cpp1z/aligned-new5.C -std=gnu++11 execution test >>+FAIL: g++.dg/cpp1z/aligned-new5.C -std=gnu++14 execution test >>+FAIL: g++.dg/cpp1z/aligned-new5.C -std=gnu++98 execution test >> >> which fails like this: >> >>terminate called after

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > On Sep 13 2016, Jason Merrill wrote: > >> Does this help? > > Unfortunatly no. It occurs to me that this function doesn't need to restrict types at all. I'm checking this in; hopefully it will do

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On Sep 13 2016, Jason Merrill wrote: > Does this help? Unfortunatly no. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different."

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On 10/09/16 07:59, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On 9 September 2016 at 23:20, Jason Merrill wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> On 08/09/16 09:10 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote: Do we want a generic fallback implementation

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

Does this help? On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > On Sep 12 2016, Jason Merrill wrote: > >> I'm checking in this patch, which should fix the remaining issues: > > Unfortunatly that breaks a few other tests: > > FAIL:

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On Sep 12 2016, Jason Merrill wrote: > I'm checking in this patch, which should fix the remaining issues: Unfortunatly that breaks a few other tests: FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/alignas5.C -std=c++11 (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/alignas5.C -std=c++14 (test for excess

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On 12 September 2016 at 22:57, Jason Merrill wrote: > I'm checking in this patch, which should fix the remaining issues: > Hi Jason, Since this commit (r240100), I'm seeing failures on: g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-21.C -std=c++11 (test for excess errors)

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

I'm checking in this patch, which should fix the remaining issues: On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > FAIL: g++.dg/cpp1z/aligned-new1.C (test for excess errors) > Excess errors: >

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 12/09/16 16:13 +0200, Rainer Orth wrote: >> >> Jason Merrill writes: >> >>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Jonathan Wakely >>> wrote: On 08/09/16 09:10 +0200, Marc

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On 12/09/16 16:13 +0200, Rainer Orth wrote: Jason Merrill writes: On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 08/09/16 09:10 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote: Do we want a generic fallback implementation (similar to

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

Jason Merrill writes: > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> On 08/09/16 09:10 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote: >>> >>> Do we want a generic fallback implementation (similar to >>> gcc/config/i386/gmm_malloc.h)? A windows version with

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On 11/09/16 11:55 +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote: On 11 September 2016 at 11:38, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Hmm, I'm not sure why it's not failing on all targets, but this should I don't know either: the same target (arm-none-eabi) but --with-cpu=cortex-a9 does build. fix it.

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On 11 September 2016 at 11:38, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 11/09/16 09:08 +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> >> On 10 September 2016 at 08:59, Christophe Lyon >> wrote: >>> >>> On 9 September 2016 at 23:20, Jason Merrill wrote:

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On 11/09/16 10:38 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 11/09/16 09:08 +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote: On 10 September 2016 at 08:59, Christophe Lyon wrote: On 9 September 2016 at 23:20, Jason Merrill wrote: On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Jonathan

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On 11/09/16 09:08 +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote: On 10 September 2016 at 08:59, Christophe Lyon wrote: On 9 September 2016 at 23:20, Jason Merrill wrote: On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 08/09/16

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On 10 September 2016 at 08:59, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On 9 September 2016 at 23:20, Jason Merrill wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> On 08/09/16 09:10 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote: Do we

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

FAIL: g++.dg/cpp1z/aligned-new1.C (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20160910/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/aligned-new1.C:10:20: warning: requested alignment 64 is larger than 16 [-Wattributes] FAIL: g++.dg/cpp1z/aligned-new1.C execution test FAIL:

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On 10/09/16 11:25 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote: On Sat, 10 Sep 2016, Christophe Lyon wrote: On aarch64*-elf and arm-eabi (using newlib), I'm seeing: /gccsrc/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/new_opa.cc:66: undefined reference to `aligned_alloc'

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On 09/09/16 17:20 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: OK, this is what I'm checking in; could someone test it on MinGW? MSDN suggests we need for _aligned_malloc, but I'm not sure. Last time I tried to build and test MinGW it made me cry, and I no longer have any access to Windows machines anyway.

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On Sat, 10 Sep 2016, Christophe Lyon wrote: On aarch64*-elf and arm-eabi (using newlib), I'm seeing: /gccsrc/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/new_opa.cc:66: undefined reference to `aligned_alloc'

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On 9 September 2016 at 23:20, Jason Merrill wrote: > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> On 08/09/16 09:10 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote: >>> >>> Do we want a generic fallback implementation (similar to >>> gcc/config/i386/gmm_malloc.h)? A

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 08/09/16 09:10 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote: >> >> Do we want a generic fallback implementation (similar to >> gcc/config/i386/gmm_malloc.h)? A windows version with _aligned_malloc / >> _aligned_free would also be

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On 08/09/16 09:10 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote: Do we want a generic fallback implementation (similar to gcc/config/i386/gmm_malloc.h)? A windows version with _aligned_malloc / _aligned_free would also be possible. Making it work for MinGW would be nice. If there are other targets that don't

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On 08/09/16 02:06 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: This patch adds support for C++17 allocation of types with alignment greater than max_align_t using 'new'. This is on by default in C++17 and can also be enabled for other -std= with -falign-new. Nice. If a user wants to use a different boundary

Re: RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

On Thu, 8 Sep 2016, Jason Merrill wrote: This patch adds support for C++17 allocation of types with alignment greater than max_align_t using 'new'. This is on by default in C++17 and can also be enabled for other -std= with -falign-new. Great :-) If a user wants to use a different boundary

RFA (libstdc++): PATCH to implement C++17 over-aligned new

This patch adds support for C++17 allocation of types with alignment greater than max_align_t using 'new'. This is on by default in C++17 and can also be enabled for other -std= with -falign-new. If a user wants to use a different boundary than alignof(max_align_t), perhaps because their malloc