[v3] get_temporary_buffer, redux
Benjamin Kosnik
bkoz@redhat.com
Thu Jan 29 06:46:00 GMT 2004
This patch has been dropped:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2003-11/msg00169.html
The reasoning:
> I don't think this is conforming. The standard doesn't require that it
> use malloc(), but I think that it does not allow it to use operator new.
> If these functions' semantics were affected by replacing operator new,
> it would have to say so.
I don't see this rationale present in the standard, or in any LWG
mailings. Several implemenations, in fact, do use new.
What gives? Here's an updated patch.
-benjamin
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: p.20040129-1.patch
URL: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/attachments/20040129/987ecf4d/attachment.ksh>
More information about the Libstdc++
mailing list