bug in new.h?

[Matthias Klose]

[ This feature or bug was reported to the Debian bug tracking system;
  please CC 44356@bugs.debian.org for replys.
  See http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/44/44356.html for the complete report]

The submitter of the bug reported:

> /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95.1/include/new lines 37.. are:
> 
> // default placement versions of operator new
> inline void *operator new(size_t, void *place) throw() { return place; }
> inline void *operator new[](size_t, void *place) throw() { return place; }
> 
> The use of inline definition here precludes me from defining my own new
> operators.
> 
> I consider this a bug.
> 
> I suggest the { return place; } bodies be removed, and the definition 
> be moved somewhere less intrusive.

Another developer responded:

> I don't see how #44356 is a bug.  It prevents him from defining his
> own two-argument new function in the default namespace; he can still
> define one in any class he chooses.  If the function bodies were off
> in a library somewhere he would have to override them in order to
> redefine new, which is not a legal course of action in C++, as far
> as I know.

and the response of the bug submitter:

 > Daniel Jacobowitz is mistaken, it prevents me from overriding an operator.
 > 
 > As far as I'm aware, overriding an operator is perfectly legal in C++.
 > 
 > I look at the draft C++ standard, here:
 >      http://www.cygnus.com:80/misc/wp/draft/lib-support.html#lib.new.delete
 > 
 > And it says (of dyadic operator new):
 >      a  C++  program  may  define a function with this function signature
 >      that displaces the default  version  defined  by  the  C++  Standard
 >      library.
 > 
 > So this library doesn't conform to the standard.  Not a bug?