While considering the PR102071 patch for backporting, I noticed that I was
considering the alignment of the array new cookie even when there isn't one
because we aren't allocating an array.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
PR c++/102071
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* init.cc (build_new_1): Check array_p for alignment.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp1z/aligned-new9.C: Add single-object test.
---
gcc/cp/init.cc | 2 +-
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/aligned-new9.C | 4 ++++
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/cp/init.cc b/gcc/cp/init.cc
index ce332c7e329..7ce8d3a46e5 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/init.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/init.cc
@@ -3292,7 +3292,7 @@ build_new_1 (vec<tree, va_gc> **placement, tree type,
tree nelts,
{
unsigned align = TYPE_ALIGN_UNIT (elt_type);
/* Also consider the alignment of the cookie, if any. */
- if (TYPE_VEC_NEW_USES_COOKIE (elt_type))
+ if (array_p && TYPE_VEC_NEW_USES_COOKIE (elt_type))
align = MAX (align, TYPE_ALIGN_UNIT (size_type_node));
align_arg = build_int_cst (align_type_node, align);
}
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/aligned-new9.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/aligned-new9.C
index 7854299419a..3fa0ed996bd 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/aligned-new9.C
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/aligned-new9.C
@@ -23,4 +23,8 @@ int main()
X *p = new X[n];
if (nalign != align)
__builtin_abort ();
+
+ X *p2 = new X;
+ if (nalign != alignof (X))
+ __builtin_abort ();
}
base-commit: aa7874596b9f12b25a3214b0a143b040fafa1f10
--
2.27.0
