Re: [Valgrind-users] 'make check' for valgrind-3.18.1

[Paul F. <pj...@wa...>]

On 18/12/2021 21:07, John Crow wrote:
> Fwiw I'm seeing a failure, snippet below, when running `make check` on 
> valgrind-3.18.1. The package configures, makes, installs, and, as far 
> as I can tell, executes successfully.
>
> $ uname -a
> Linux foo-Inspiron-3583 5.4.0-91-generic #102-Ubuntu SMP Fri Nov 5 
> 16:31:28 UTC 2021 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> $ gcc --version
> gcc (Ubuntu 9.3.0-17ubuntu1~20.04) 9.3.0
> $ ./configure --prefix=/my/prefix  # seems to work fine
> $ make                             # completes successfully
> $ make check
> . . . snip ...
>
> c++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../..  -I../.. -I../../include 
> -I../../coregrind -I../../include -I../../VEX/pub -I../../VEX/pub 
> -DVGA_amd64=1 -DVGO_linux=1 -DVGP_amd64_linux=1 
> -DVGPV_amd64_linux_vanilla=1    -std=c++17 -Wno-mismatched-new-delete 
>  -MT cxx17_aligned_new-cxx17_aligned_new.o -MD -MP -MF 
> .deps/cxx17_aligned_new-cxx17_aligned_new.Tpo -c -o 
> cxx17_aligned_new-cxx17_aligned_new.o `test -f 'cxx17_aligned_new.cpp' 
> || echo './'`cxx17_aligned_new.cpp
> cxx17_aligned_new.cpp:25:5: error: no matching function for call to 
> 'operator delete'
>     operator delete(myClass, 64U, std::align_val_t(64U));
>     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> /usr/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/9/../../../../include/c++/9/new:154:6: 
> note: candidate function not viable: no known conversion from 
> 'unsigned int' to 'std::align_val_t' for 2nd argument
> void operator delete(void*, std::align_val_t, const std::nothrow_t&)
>

Hi

That's for me.

You are building with the same compiler that was used at configure time?

configure.ac does contain a test for "operator delete(nullptr, 
std::align_val_t(64U));" which I presume passes. It seems strange that 
this passes (a C++17 feature) but the sized overload doesn't (which is a 
combination of C++14 and C++17).


I'm using GCC 11 and in /usr/include/c++/11/new there is


/** These are replaceable signatures:
  *  - normal single new and delete (no arguments, throw @c bad_alloc on 
error)
  *  - normal array new and delete (same)
  *  - @c nothrow single new and delete (take a @c nothrow argument, return
  *    @c NULL on error)
  *  - @c nothrow array new and delete (same)
  *
  *  Placement new and delete signatures (take a memory address argument,
  *  does nothing) may not be replaced by a user's program.
*/
_GLIBCXX_NODISCARD void* operator new(std::size_t) _GLIBCXX_THROW 
(std::bad_alloc)
   __attribute__((__externally_visible__));

SNIP

#if __cpp_aligned_new
_GLIBCXX_NODISCARD void* operator new(std::size_t, std::align_val_t)
   __attribute__((__externally_visible__, __alloc_size__ (1), __malloc__));

SNIP

#if __cpp_sized_deallocation

this is the one we want

void operator delete(void*, std::size_t, std::align_val_t)
   _GLIBCXX_USE_NOEXCEPT __attribute__((__externally_visible__));
void operator delete[](void*, std::size_t, std::align_val_t)
   _GLIBCXX_USE_NOEXCEPT __attribute__((__externally_visible__));
#endif // __cpp_sized_deallocation
#endif // __cpp_aligned_new


Does yours look similar?


Does the following change help


diff --git a/memcheck/tests/cxx17_aligned_new.cpp 
b/memcheck/tests/cxx17_aligned_new.cpp
index 6f574d066..0eeec2ba6 100644
--- a/memcheck/tests/cxx17_aligned_new.cpp
+++ b/memcheck/tests/cxx17_aligned_new.cpp
@@ -22,10 +22,10 @@ int main() {

      // sized versions
      myClass = new MyClass();
-    operator delete(myClass, 64U, std::align_val_t(64U));
+    operator delete(myClass, size_t(64U), std::align_val_t(64U));

      myClass5 = new MyClass[5];
-    operator delete [](myClass5, 320U, std::align_val_t(64U));
+    operator delete [](myClass5, size_t(320U), std::align_val_t(64U));

      MyClass* myClassNt = new (std::nothrow) MyClass;
      operator delete(myClassNt, std::align_val_t(64U), std::nothrow);

(a size_t literal suffix may come one day, but not for a few years at 
least http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p0330r8.html)


A+

Paul