This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [RFC] Marking C++ new operator as malloc?

From: "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
To: "Chris Lattner" <clattner at apple dot com>
Cc: "Joe Buck" <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com>, "Martin Jambor" <jamborm at matfyz dot cz>, "GCC Mailing List" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 22:21:18 +0200
Subject: Re: [RFC] Marking C++ new operator as malloc?
References: <20070907205343.GA22936@matfyz.cz> <EB93AAC0-964B-42BE-958A-1FF5CA078AE8@apple.com> <20070908051212.GA24635@synopsys.com> <CD86F976-926C-4E5D-9B28-4AEFE38A3B89@apple.com>

On 9/8/07, Chris Lattner <clattner@apple.com> wrote:
> I understand, but allowing users to override new means that the actual
> implementation may not honor the aliasing guarantees of attribute
> malloc.

Well, you can argue that all hell breaks lose if you do so.  A sane ::new
is required for almost everything :)

Richard.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFC] Marking C++ new operator as malloc?
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis

References:
- [RFC] Marking C++ new operator as malloc?
  - From: Martin Jambor
- Re: [RFC] Marking C++ new operator as malloc?
  - From: Chris Lattner
- Re: [RFC] Marking C++ new operator as malloc?
  - From: Joe Buck
- Re: [RFC] Marking C++ new operator as malloc?
  - From: Chris Lattner

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]