This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
C++ PATCH for c++/42115 (excessive placement delete errors)
- From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- To: gcc-patches List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:03:07 -0500
- Subject: C++ PATCH for c++/42115 (excessive placement delete errors)
- References: <4AF9B175.1080708@redhat.com> <4AFB2B9C.6020608@redhat.com>
It occurred to me when responding to this PR that a reasonable
interpretation of the standard would be that if there is an op delete
(void *), the op delete (void *, size_t) isn't a usual deallocation
function, so using it for placement delete is OK.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applied to trunk.
commit 081898d3bd656946dc0ce3b3955e395dc02e4999
Author: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Date: Thu Nov 19 22:32:34 2009 -0500
PR c++/42115
* call.c (build_op_delete_call): Don't complain about using
op delete (void *, size_t) for placement delete if there's an
op delete (void *).
diff --git a/gcc/cp/call.c b/gcc/cp/call.c
index ca6bd0b..3b3ccb6 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/call.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/call.c
@@ -4622,8 +4622,20 @@ build_op_delete_call (enum tree_code code, tree addr, tree size,
allocation function, the program is ill-formed." */
if (non_placement_deallocation_fn_p (fn))
{
+ /* But if the class has an operator delete (void *), then that is
+ the usual deallocation function, so we shouldn't complain
+ about using the operator delete (void *, size_t). */
+ for (t = BASELINK_P (fns) ? BASELINK_FUNCTIONS (fns) : fns;
+ t; t = OVL_NEXT (t))
+ {
+ tree elt = OVL_CURRENT (t);
+ if (non_placement_deallocation_fn_p (elt)
+ && FUNCTION_ARG_CHAIN (elt) == void_list_node)
+ goto ok;
+ }
permerror (0, "non-placement deallocation function %q+D", fn);
permerror (input_location, "selected for placement delete");
+ ok:;
}
}
else
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/placement5.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/placement5.C
index bb88239..1d540da 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/placement5.C
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/placement5.C
@@ -3,16 +3,30 @@
// placement deallocation function, would have been selected as a match for
// the allocation function, the program is ill-formed.
+// But we should only complain about using op delete (void *, size_t) for
+// placement delete if it would also be selected for normal delete, not if
+// there's also an op delete (void *).
+
typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
struct A
{
A();
- static void* operator new (size_t, size_t);
- static void operator delete (void *, size_t); // { dg-error "non-placement" }
+ void* operator new (size_t, size_t);
+ void operator delete (void *, size_t); // { dg-error "non-placement" }
+};
+
+struct B
+{
+ B();
+ void * operator new (size_t);
+ void * operator new (size_t, size_t);
+ void operator delete (void *);
+ void operator delete (void *, size_t);
};
int main()
{
A* ap = new (24) A; // { dg-error "placement delete" }
+ B* bp = new (24) B;
}