This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Placement new[] weirdness
- To: (Mike Stump) <mrs at wrs dot com>
- Subject: Re: Placement new[] weirdness
- From: Andrey Slepuhin <pooh at msu dot ru>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 00:49:18 +0400 (MEDT)
- Cc: egcs at egcs dot cygnus dot com
- Organization: Moscow State University Network (MSUnet)
On 15-Jul-99 Mike Stump wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 18:40:22 +0400 (MEDT)
>> From: Andrey Slepuhin <pooh@msu.ru>
>> To: egcs@egcs.cygnus.com
>
>> --new(2,f) T[5] results in a call of
>> operator new[](sizeof(T)*5+y,2,f).
>> This means that a call of placement new[] operator
>> new(p) T[N];
>> returns p+x, where x is some implementation-defined constant.
>> This makes placement new[] operator totally useless.
>
> You have us confused with comp.std.c++. I disagree with your
> assessment.
Well, may be comp.std.c++ more appropriate place for discussion,
But indeed we have two different problems:
1) Whether C++ standard is well-formed on this topic.
2) If clause 18.4.1.3 of standard is right, then egcs is wrong.
Note that I have *concrete* compiler, and all I want is
to have this compiler conforming to C++ standard. And I ask egcs
people because I have problems with *concrete* implementation.
Sorry,
Andrey.