On Sun, 30 Apr 2017, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017, David Gressett wrote: >> I'm working on getting the 32-bit MinGW platform on Windows updated to >> a newer gcc than the gcc 5.3.0 thst is provided by the 32-bit MinGW >> installer Iwas able to build gcc 5.4.0 and 6.3.0 with only >> minor\difficulties, but the 7.0.1 release candidates do not build. >> >> The problem occurs when xgcc attempts to compile this: >> >> libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/new_opa.cc >> >> The error messages are as follows: >> >> new_opa.cc: In function 'void* operator new(std::size_t, std::align_val_t)': >> new_opa.cc:36:30: error: '_aligned_malloc' was not declared in this >> scope #define aligned_alloc(al,sz) _aligned_malloc(sz,al) >> >> new_opa.cc:103:33: note: in expansion of macro 'aligned_alloc' >> while (__builtin_expect ((p = aligned_alloc (align, sz)) == 0, false)) >> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> new_opa.cc:36:30: note: suggested alternative: 'aligned_alloc' >> #define aligned_alloc(al,sz) _aligned_malloc(sz,al) >> ^ >> >> new_opa.cc:103:33: note: in expansion of macro 'aligned_alloc' >> while (__builtin_expect ((p = aligned_alloc (align, sz)) == 0, false)) >> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ My searches in the >> source code for _aligned_malloc found a changelog entry for Bugzilla >> PR libstdc++/79190, which is not for Windows - it is for HP-UX 11.00. >> I did see, however, in comment 6 of bug report 79190, the following >> reference to Windows: >> >> "We are using _aligned_malloc / _aligned_free on Windows, so it has to >> be the case that alignment matches in allocation and deallocation." >> >> There are no details about which kind of Windows gcc this is in >> (Cygwin?), but this suggests that a fix for MinGW should be simple. I >> would like to be able to supply a fix for this before gcc 7 is >> released, but I don't know nearly enough about the details of how gcc is configured to do that before the release date. >According to the documentation, we may be missing a #include <malloc.h> in new_opa.cc, but if that's the case, it is strange that noone noticed before... Does >adding this #include help? #include <malloc.h> has no effect.
