From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26673 invoked by alias); 13 May 2005 21:13:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 26649 invoked by uid 48); 13 May 2005 21:13:47 -0000 Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 21:13:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050513211347.26648.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "pcarlini at suse dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050513192329.21554.jsm28@gcc.gnu.org> References: <20050513192329.21554.jsm28@gcc.gnu.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/21554] [4.0 Regression] ext/array_allocator/2.cc execution test fails on hppa64-hpux X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg01828.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-05-13 21:13 ------- > So this should be treated as a known latent bug, a testcase which fails or > passes at random on targets requiring strict alignment? In which case > there should be an effective-target keyword for strict alignment and the > testcase should be xfailed on all such targets? Yes, I think the testcase should be simply xfaild on targets requiring strict alignment, that is, requiring alignment strictly > alignment(char) for memory involved in atomic operations. Currently (*) basic_string doesn't rebind the passed allocator to one sufficiently aligned for atomic memory, sadly. (*) Since we don't want to break the library ABI anytime soon, probably I will try again to fix this long standing bug within v6 (while also keep on working on the next basic_string in v7). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21554