On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> On 22 September 2016 at 15:01, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Christophe Lyon
>> wrote:
>>> This new test (aligned-new6.C) fails on arm/aarch64 bare-metal targets
>>> (using newlib):
>>> arm-none-eabi/./libstdc+
On 22 September 2016 at 15:01, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
>> This new test (aligned-new6.C) fails on arm/aarch64 bare-metal targets
>> (using newlib):
>> arm-none-eabi/./libstdc++-v3/src/.libs/libstdc++.a(new_opa.o): In
>> function `operator n
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> This new test (aligned-new6.C) fails on arm/aarch64 bare-metal targets
> (using newlib):
> arm-none-eabi/./libstdc++-v3/src/.libs/libstdc++.a(new_opa.o): In
> function `operator new(unsigned int, std::align_val_t)':
> /gccsrc/libstdc++-v3/l
Hi,
On 21 September 2016 at 17:03, Jason Merrill wrote:
> OK.
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> The following patch fixes some ICEs which were because of missing
>> RejectNegative for the *aligned-new= options - they have their "negative"
>> values as the o
OK.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The following patch fixes some ICEs which were because of missing
> RejectNegative for the *aligned-new= options - they have their "negative"
> values as the option argument, so the only options that should allow
> negative form
Hi!
The following patch fixes some ICEs which were because of missing
RejectNegative for the *aligned-new= options - they have their "negative"
values as the option argument, so the only options that should allow
negative forms are -Wno-aligned-new and -fno-aligned-new, not
-Wno-aligned-new=none o
