EricWF added a comment.
My personal preference would be to diagnose `std::default_delete<T[N]>` and
`std::unique_ptr<T[N]>`, but I'll defer to your judgment here.
An alternative implementation would be to provide a "default_delete<T[N]>"
specialization. (Note that adding this specialization does not change the
mangling, so it is ABI safe).
================
Comment at: include/memory:2525
@@ -2524,1 +2524,3 @@
+template <class _Tp, bool __isArray> struct __do_default_delete;
+template <class _Tp> struct __do_default_delete<_Tp, true>
----------------
`__isArray` doesn't match the current naming style for template parameters.
Also it would make sense to put the `is_array<_Tp>::value` as a default
parameter here.
================
Comment at: include/memory:2527
@@ +2526,3 @@
+template <class _Tp> struct __do_default_delete<_Tp, true>
+{ void operator() (_Tp* __ptr) const _NOEXCEPT { delete [] __ptr; }};
+
----------------
`_LIBCPP_INLINE_VISILIBITY`
http://reviews.llvm.org/D21320
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
