On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:37 AM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> On 7/30/19 4:00 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, Martin Liška wrote:
> >
> >> Ah, that's bad, both of them need a care:
> >
> > Yes, that makes more sense to me, thanks.
> >
> >>> I tried to experiment to understand, but it is complicated because
> >>> including <new> disables the optimization:
> >>>
> >>> #include <new>
> >>> void fn1() {
> >>> char*p=new char;
> >>> delete p;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> This ICEs with -O -std=c++17:
> >>>
> >>> int a = 64;
> >>> std::align_val_t b{64};
> >>> void fn1() {
> >>> void *s = operator new(a,b);
> >>> operator delete(s,8+*(unsigned long*)s,b);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> I can't see it on current master. Can you?
> >
> > Yes. I just did a clean build to make sure.
> >
>
> That's addressed in a patch I'm attaching.
>
> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
>
> Ready to be installed?
OK.
> Thanks,
> Martin
