https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115712
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- [expr.new] p14: An implementation is allowed to omit a call to a replaceable global allocation function (17.6.3.2, 17.6.3.3). When it does so, the storage is instead provided by the implementation or provided by extending the allocation of another new-expression. So the testcase is invalid, and HJ's patch in comment 13 is needed (although see https://inbox.sourceware.org/binutils/zojsfb_1fcmpf...@zen.kayari.org/ as I think that has a different problem). So I agree with INVALID.
