https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104177
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #17) > (In reply to David Ledger from comment #15) > > This is a complete minimum reproduction, just to aid Iain Sandoe: > > This is well defined code? because I thought operator new has alignment > requirements as defined by the C++ standard ... That example is undefined even by the standard operator new according basic.stc.dynamic.allocation/3.3 rule. (and undefined even worse by not enough for the size too).
