This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug libstdc++/29286] [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement new does not change the dynamic type as it should
- From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 23 May 2007 13:43:08 -0000
- Subject: [Bug libstdc++/29286] [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement new does not change the dynamic type as it should
- References: <bug-29286-10053@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #126 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-05-23 14:43 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement
new does not change the dynamic type as it should
On Wed, 23 May 2007, gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu wrote:
> ------- Comment #125 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-05-23 14:22 -------
> Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] placement new does not change the
> dynamic type as it should
>
> "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> | But you can still perform hoisting loads of incoming pointer arguments
> | and sinking stores to incoming pointer arguments. Please read comment
> | #105 and come up with a testcase where we wouldn't be allowed to do
> | a useful transformation we do now. So I believe making placement new
> | work with our current scheme will severely pessimize placement new
> | users, but if we slightly change rules for everyone we'll be all happy.
>
> Update.
>
> The only comment I have so far on the -core reflector is to the effect
> that the reading that the program I posted earlier violates NO
> aliasing rule. I'll follow with the proposal to bring the rules in
> line with recent C99 rules.
Note that it is important to retain the capability to implement
memory allocators in C++ that are allowed to re-use memory for different
typed objects. Which is not possible with C99 rules.
Richard.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29286