On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 06/11/15 09:59 +0000, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>
>> On 11/06/2015 01:56 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5 November 2015 at 23:31, Daniel Gutson
>>
>>
>>>> The issue is, as I understand it, to do the actual work of operator
>>>> new, i.e. allocate memory. It should force
>>>> us to copy most of the code of the original code of operator new,
>>>> which may change on new versions of the
>>>> STL, forcing us to keep updated.
>>>
>>>
>>> It can just call malloc, and the replacement operator delete can call
>>> free.
>>>
>>> That is very unlikely to need to change (which is corroborated by the
>>> fact that the default definitions in libsupc++ change very rarely).
>>
>>
>> Or perhaps libsupc++ could provide the default operator new under
>> a __default_operator_new alias or some such, so that the user-defined
>> replacement can fallback to calling it. Likewise for op delete.
that would allow us to overload operator new as something like this:
void* operator new ( std::size_t count, const std::nothrow_t& tag)
noexcept(true)
{
const auto old_handler = std::set_new_handler(nullptr);
const auto ret = __default_operator_new(count, tag);
std::set_new_handler(old_handler);
return ret;
}
This is a non-iterating operator new.
This additional user defined operator new would be possible:
void* operator new ( std::size_t count, const std::nothrow_t& tag)
noexcept(true)
{
const auto old_handler = std::set_new_handler(nullptr);
const auto ret = __default_operator_new(count, tag);
std::set_new_handler(old_handler);
if (ret == nullptr && old_handler != nullptr)
old_handler();
return ret;
}
So I like the idea.
>
>
> That could be useful, please file an enhancement request in bugzilla
> if you'd like that done.
--
Daniel F. Gutson
Chief Engineering Officer, SPD
San Lorenzo 47, 3rd Floor, Office 5
Córdoba, Argentina
Phone: +54 351 4217888 / +54 351 4218211
Skype: dgutson
LinkedIn: http://ar.linkedin.com/in/danielgutson
