https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94671
--- Comment #9 from Bas Vodde <b...@odd-e.com> --- Hi Jonathan, You are right, I was drawing much too many conclusions there. I should have waited with that comment until I slept :) Sorry for that. And it has been a while since I read the proposal, it has been years since we hit this problem in clang. Let me experiment a bit and see why gcc now behaves differently than clang, and whether that can cause a non-optimized placement delete to called on a replace operator new. Otherwise, I still find it odd behavior but less harmful as I wrongly stated in the previous comment.
