On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 10:25:16AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> I think it's pretty clear and easy to describe to users what "m " and
> what "mC" do. But with "pure" this is an odd intermediate state. For both
> "m " and "mP" you suggest above the new/delete might modify their
> global state but as you can't rely on the new/delete pair to prevail
> you cannot rely on the modification to happen. But how do you explain
> that
If we are willing to make the default not strictly conforming (i.e.
basically revert PR101480 by default and make the GCC 11.1/11.2 behavior
the default and allow -fno-sane-operators-new-delete to change to GCC
11.3/14.* behavior), I can live with it.
But we need to make the documentation clear that the default is not strictly
conforming.
Jakub
