https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99845
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Keith Halligan from comment #0)
> class MemAlloc {
> public:
> MemAlloc() {}
> void* operator new[](size_t sz, const std::nothrow_t& nt) {
> return ::operator new(sz, nt);
> }
Why is this function written as an overloaded operator new?
You never use it for new-expressions like `new MemAlloc[n]` so why isn't it
just a normal named member function that allocates memory?
It isn't the cause of the bug, but it is confusing to have this extra operator
new[] involved that is a red herring.
It should probably be something like:
struct MemAlloc {
static void* alloc(size_t sz) {
return ::operator new(sz, std::nothrow);
}
};
and then just call it as a normal static member function:
void* operator new[](size_t sz, const std::nothrow_t&) {
return MemAlloc::alloc(sz);
}
