On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 7:06 AM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> We've got one another sneaky test-case (thank you Marc ;) ):
>
> $ cat pr94314-array.C
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <new>
>
> int count = 0;
>
> __attribute__((malloc, noinline)) void* operator new[](unsigned long sz) {
> ++count;
> return ::operator new(sz);
> }
>
> void operator delete[](void* ptr) noexcept {
> --count;
> ::operator delete(ptr);
> }
>
> void operator delete[](void* ptr, std::size_t sz) noexcept {
> --count;
> ::operator delete(ptr, sz);
> }
>
> int main() {
> delete[] new int[1];
> if (count != 0)
> __builtin_abort ();
> }
>
> I bet we need to include the Honza's fix for inline stacks.
> Or it the test-case invalid?
I don't see how inline stacking helps here when you consider
void *foo(unsigned long sz) { return ::operator new(sz); }
void operator delete[](void* ptr) noexcept {
--count;
::operator delete(ptr);
}
thus regular functions inlining where definitely the inline
stack depth does not need to match.
I guess the testcase asks for us to match the exact
operator form (in the testcase we match ::delete and ::new[]),
for example by instead of looking at the decl flags
simply match the assembler names (the mangled names)
of the operator?
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Martin
