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: "Andrew Pinski" <pinskia at gmail dot com>
To: "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu>
Cc: "Chris Lattner" <clattner at apple dot com>, "Martin Jambor" <jamborm at matfyz dot cz>, "GCC Mailing List" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:59:58 -0700
Subject: Re: [RFC] Marking C++ new operator as malloc?
References: <20070907205343.GA22936@matfyz.cz> <EB93AAC0-964B-42BE-958A-1FF5CA078AE8@apple.com> <de8d50360709131638t1bb7c3fakd9d0363902f06b52@mail.gmail.com> <87y7fakrp4.fsf@soliton.cs.tamu.edu>

On 13 Sep 2007 19:37:27 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@cs.tamu.edu> wrote:
> Do you believe that allocator is prohibited by the C++ standard?

Yes just because it points to another object at that point.

Now people do these tricks, I know but I guess most of them don't
understand C++ that much to know they are invoking undefined behavior.

-- Pinski

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

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