steakhal wrote: > The code that you're removing is not an accidental bug, but an intentional > (although perhaps overzealous) feature that tries to warn about the fact that > placement new for an array type may allocate an unspecified amount of > overhead (extra memory) for internal needs. > > According to a quick search this was a significant issue especially in Visual > Studio (where it could cause memory corruption), but very recent versions of > the standard (C++20 and later) declare that _placement_ new of arrays must > not introduce an overhead: https://stackoverflow.com/a/75418614 > > To improve the usefulness of this checker, I weakly support this change, but > I would also like to see a second opinion from @steakhal @Xazax-hun @haoNoQ > or other contributors.
I never understood the reasons of having metadata for placement-new. Certainly on linux it was not the case, but I'm skeptical if it was on any other platforms such as Windows. (prove me wrong). But unless it's proved that such a platform exists under some configuration, I see no benefit of having this warning. And even then, we should at least make this diagnostic conditional to only have it for the platforms where it's actually a thing. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/150161 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
