From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20328 invoked by alias); 22 Dec 2010 13:51:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 20318 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Dec 2010 13:51:56 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:51:52 +0000 From: "aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/46941] [trans-mem] new/delete operator are unsafe X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Status Last reconfirmed Ever Confirmed Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:51:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-12/txt/msg02494.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941 Aldy Hernandez changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed| |2010.12.22 13:51:33 Ever Confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez 2010-12-22 13:51:33 UTC --- Patrick. I haven't analyzed your patch yet, but it causes the following regressions: FAIL: g++.dg/tm/pr45940-3.C (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/tm/pr45940-4.C (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/tm/pr46269.C (internal compiler error) FAIL: g++.dg/tm/pr46269.C (test for excess errors) Try to run the regression suite to test your patch first. It's a good first round of testing. You can run it with "make check" from the toplevel build directory. You can compare results with and without your patch. To run just the TM compiler tests you can do: make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS=tm.exp I have a similar patch to yours that I'm playing with, that unfortunately also causes the pr46269.C regression, though not the pr45940-* failures. I am debugging and will report shortly. Thanks.