* [Bug c++/13215] bad code generated to call operator new[] when -fcheck-new
2003-11-28 11:51 [Bug c++/13215] New: bad code generated to call operator new[] when -fcheck-new tom at storagematrix dot com
@ 2003-11-28 13:14 ` falk at debian dot org
2003-11-28 17:34 ` [Bug c++/13215] [3.3 only] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: falk at debian dot org @ 2003-11-28 13:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2003-11-28 13:14 -------
I can confirm this with 3.3, but it seems fixed in 3.4. As -fcheck-new is not
a frequently used option, I am not certain this will be fixed in 3.3.3...
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13215
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/13215] [3.3 only] bad code generated to call operator new[] when -fcheck-new
2003-11-28 11:51 [Bug c++/13215] New: bad code generated to call operator new[] when -fcheck-new tom at storagematrix dot com
2003-11-28 13:14 ` [Bug c++/13215] " falk at debian dot org
@ 2003-11-28 17:34 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-01 2:06 ` [Bug c++/13215] [3.3 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-11-28 17:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |wrong-code
Summary|bad code generated to call |[3.3 only] bad code
|operator new[] when -fcheck-|generated to call operator
|new |new[] when -fcheck-new
Target Milestone|--- |3.3.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13215
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/13215] [3.3 Regression] bad code generated to call operator new[] when -fcheck-new
2003-11-28 11:51 [Bug c++/13215] New: bad code generated to call operator new[] when -fcheck-new tom at storagematrix dot com
2003-11-28 13:14 ` [Bug c++/13215] " falk at debian dot org
2003-11-28 17:34 ` [Bug c++/13215] [3.3 only] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-12-01 2:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-21 21:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-12-01 2:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-12-01 02:06 -------
This is a regression from 2.95.3.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[3.3 only] bad code |[3.3 Regression] bad code
|generated to call operator |generated to call operator
|new[] when -fcheck-new |new[] when -fcheck-new
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13215
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/13215] [3.3 Regression] bad code generated to call operator new[] when -fcheck-new
2003-11-28 11:51 [Bug c++/13215] New: bad code generated to call operator new[] when -fcheck-new tom at storagematrix dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2003-12-01 2:06 ` [Bug c++/13215] [3.3 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-12-21 21:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-21 21:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-12-21 21:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-12-21 21:30 -------
The fix went into the mainline between 20030410 and 20030413.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13215
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/13215] [3.3 Regression] bad code generated to call operator new[] when -fcheck-new
2003-11-28 11:51 [Bug c++/13215] New: bad code generated to call operator new[] when -fcheck-new tom at storagematrix dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2003-12-21 21:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-12-21 21:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-21 21:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-12-21 21:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-12-21 21:23 -------
I can confirm this with the example without -fcheck-new and it works on them mainline.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2003-12-21 21:23:09
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13215
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/13215] [3.3 Regression] bad code generated to call operator new[] when -fcheck-new
2003-11-28 11:51 [Bug c++/13215] New: bad code generated to call operator new[] when -fcheck-new tom at storagematrix dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2003-12-21 21:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-12-21 21:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-22 5:33 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-12-21 21:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-12-21 21:40 -------
The patch to fix this is here: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-04/msg00948.html>.
Mark it looks like your patch for 3.3 did not fix all the problems, assigning it to you as your
patch for the mainline fixes it there.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13215
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/13215] [3.3 Regression] bad code generated to call operator new[] when -fcheck-new
2003-11-28 11:51 [Bug c++/13215] New: bad code generated to call operator new[] when -fcheck-new tom at storagematrix dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2003-12-21 21:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-12-22 5:33 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-12-22 5:46 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
` (2 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-12-22 5:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-12-22 05:25 -------
It's not practical to backport the mainline changes to GCC 3.3.3.
I don't think that it's worth spending effort to fix this bug for GCC 3.3.3, so
I've removed my name from the assigned field. However, if I caused this
regression and Gaby thinks it's imperative that this bug be fixed, I will see if
I can fix the problem.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org |dot org
Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13215
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/13215] [3.3 Regression] bad code generated to call operator new[] when -fcheck-new
2003-11-28 11:51 [Bug c++/13215] New: bad code generated to call operator new[] when -fcheck-new tom at storagematrix dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2003-12-22 5:33 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-12-22 5:46 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2003-12-22 22:57 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-15 22:22 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: gdr at integrable-solutions dot net @ 2003-12-22 5:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2003-12-22 05:30 -------
Subject: Re: [3.3 Regression] bad code generated to call operator new[] when -fcheck-new
"mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
| It's not practical to backport the mainline changes to GCC 3.3.3.
So, let's close it as WONTFIX for 3.3.x
Thanks,
-- Gaby
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13215
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/13215] [3.3 Regression] bad code generated to call operator new[] when -fcheck-new
2003-11-28 11:51 [Bug c++/13215] New: bad code generated to call operator new[] when -fcheck-new tom at storagematrix dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2003-12-22 5:46 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
@ 2003-12-22 22:57 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-15 22:22 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-12-22 22:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-12-22 21:54 -------
Not to be fixed for 3.3.3.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |WONTFIX
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13215
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/13215] [3.3 Regression] bad code generated to call operator new[] when -fcheck-new
2003-11-28 11:51 [Bug c++/13215] New: bad code generated to call operator new[] when -fcheck-new tom at storagematrix dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2003-12-22 22:57 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-02-15 22:22 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-02-15 22:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15 17:44 -------
*** Bug 19975 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mkunka2 at earthlink dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13215
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread