On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> wrote: > On Tue, 21 Mar 2017, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > >> On 20 March 2017 at 04:27, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Ville Voutilainen >>> <ville.voutilai...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I ran the tests for g++.dg/init thus far. Does this patch make sense? >>> >>> The condition needs to be a lot more specific: DR 1748 only applies to >>> the non-allocating forms in [new.delete.placement], not to other >>> placement allocation functions. >> >> Round 2: >> >> The new tests tested on Linux-x64, finishing testing with the full suite on >> Linux-PPC64. >> >> 2017-03-20 Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilai...@gmail.com> >> >> gcc/ >> PR c++/35878 >> * cp/init.c (build_new_1): Don't do a null check for >> a namespace-scope non-replaceable placement new >> in C++17 mode unless -fcheck-new is provided. > > It looks strange to me. Why not change the definition of check_new instead > of changing the condition that uses it?
Agreed. Also, let's factor the new tests out into a function, say non_allocating_fn_p. > In C++17 mode, you test for NULL return from throwing operator > new, why? This is a DR, doesn't it mean that it should apply to all modes? > Or is the hope that limiting it to an experimental mode might let it pass in > stage 4? Bingo. Jason
