On 10/09/16 07:59, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On 9 September 2016 at 23:20, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On 08/09/16 09:10 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote: >>>> >>>> Do we want a generic fallback implementation (similar to >>>> gcc/config/i386/gmm_malloc.h)? A windows version with _aligned_malloc / >>>> _aligned_free would also be possible. >>> >>> Making it work for MinGW would be nice. >> >> OK, this is what I'm checking in; could someone test it on MinGW? >> >> Jason > > Hi Jason, > > I'm seeing problems on arm*linux: the tests aligned-new[1235].C fail to link: > aligned-new5.C:(.text+0x14): undefined reference to `operator > new(unsigned int, std::align_val_t)' > > > On aarch64*-elf and arm-eabi (using newlib), I'm seeing: > /gccsrc/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/new_opa.cc:66: undefined reference to > `aligned_alloc' > > Am I missing something in my setup? >
fwiw, i also see cilk plus execution test failures on arm linux since this commit. (they abort) FAIL: c-c++-common/cilk-plus/CK/fib.c -O1 execution test FAIL: c-c++-common/cilk-plus/CK/fib.c -g -O2 execution test FAIL: c-c++-common/cilk-plus/CK/fib_init_expr_xy.c -g execution test FAIL: c-c++-common/cilk-plus/CK/fib_no_return.c -O1 execution test FAIL: g++.dg/cilk-plus/CK/for1.cc -O1 -fcilkplus execution test FAIL: g++.dg/cilk-plus/CK/for1.cc -O3 -fcilkplus execution test FAIL: g++.dg/cilk-plus/CK/for1.cc -g -fcilkplus execution test FAIL: g++.dg/cilk-plus/CK/for1.cc -g -O2 -fcilkplus execution test > Thanks, > > Christophe >
