This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ 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: PATCH: V3 support for arm-none-symbianelf


Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:

| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| 
| >Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
| >
| >| ! #if _GLIBCXX_HOSTED
| >| ! using std::free;
| >| ! #else
| >| ! // In a freestanding environment, "free" may not be available.  In
| >| ! // that case, it may make sense not to define "operator delete" at
| >| ! // all.  For now, we assume that "free" will work.
| >
| >I do not understand this comment.  operator delete is required,
| >freestanding or not.  So, I do not understand the bits saying it may
| >make sense not to define "operator delete".  Could you clarify?
| >
| Independent of what the standard says, some systems don't have dynamic
| memory management, and don't want it. If you don't have "free" on your
| system, you probably do not want "delete" either, depsite the fact
| that C++ requires "delete" and C does not require "free".

Thanks for clarifying your comments.  I believe this elaboration much
clearer and less confusing, especially when the patch is viewed as
"vigorous support" for freestanding implementation.  I believe it
should go in one form or the other in the source.

| Certainly, if you don't have "free" there's no obvious portable
| implementation of "delete".

I won't argue with that.

-- Gaby


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