From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10006 invoked by alias); 1 Jun 2005 08:43:23 -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 9978 invoked by uid 48); 1 Jun 2005 08:43:19 -0000 Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 08:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050601084319.9977.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 fails X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00038.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-06-01 08:43 ------- Eric, if you are willing to prepare a patchlet xfailing the testcase on "strict-alignment" targets, whatever that means (*), I would be grateful. (*) Actually, in case of hppa64 the alignment is insufficient for the size_t length and capacity fields. In other cases (powerpc) can be the atomic memory for the reference-count. In any case, I don't think we can fix this problem without changing basic_string in a binary incompatible way vs other so.6 releases, unfortunately. Certainly, not for 4.0.x. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21554