http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59898
--- Comment #5 from ignat at gmx dot net ---
16 overloadable memory allocation functions??? brave new world!
Nothing against the possibility to have explicit alignment (when you need to
align to a cache line, page or disk-block), but why not just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59898
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
Here is a link to what the future (C++17) might look like for alignment:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3396.htm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59898
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This unfortunately needs to be changed in the C++ standard, as long as the
operator new functions/methods that must be used and user can override with
their versions don't take the alignment as some parameter,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59898
--- Comment #2 from ignat at gmx dot net ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> User error. The standard allocators don't guarantee sufficient alignment
> for the vector types.
OMG, I see. Thx for clarifying. So this means that C++ is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59898
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
