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]

Re: Placement new[] weirdness


On 17-Jul-99 Jason Merrill wrote:
> Yes, this situation sucks.  But it's not a bug; the void* placement array
> new as defined in the standard is inherently useless.  You might file a
> defect report.
> 
> As you (Andrey) noted, egcs doesn't allocate space for the cookie if the
> object type doesn't have a destructor; that was me trying to make it more
> useful.  Perhaps I should have disabled the cookie for all cases of the
> standard placement new, since there's no well-formed delete-expression you
> can use to delete the result of such a new.

Hi,
My apologies to all for this discussion. I really didn't want to make
this thread growing to such huge size.
Indeed I was confused a lot because in final C++ draft I have important
words about "the result of the new-expression will be offset by this amount
from the value returned by operator new[]" were absent. Branko, thanks to
point this out. And many thanks to Mike for his patience, because I
often explained bad what I really thought.

Once more, my apologies.

Best regards,
Andrey.


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