http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59875
--- Comment #4 from josephlawrie at hotmail dot com ---
> To let the compiler know that you want the standard operator delete (which
> does nothing on 0), I am not sure what should be done. It is a different
> issue, which you would ne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59875
--- Comment #2 from josephlawrie at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> I don't think it has anything to do with glibc or weak. If I patch
> tree-ssa-loop-ivcanon.c (couldn't find a sufficient option
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: josephlawrie at hotmail dot com
The following (weird) code changed from a stackoverflow post demonstrates the
problem:
#include
#include
#include
/*
void * operator new(std::size_t n) throw(std::bad_alloc
