On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 04:01:57PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ross Ridge) writes: > > | Joe Buck writes: > | >If a check were to be implemented, the right thing to do would be to throw > | >bad_alloc (for the default new) or return 0 (for the nothrow new). > | > | Ross Ridge writes: > | >What do you do if the user has defined his own operator new that does > | >something else? > | > | Gabriel Dos Reis writes: > | >More precisely? > | > | Well, for example, like all other things that a new_handler can do, > | like throwing an exception derived from bad_alloc or calling exit(). > | In addition, any number of side effects are possible, like printing > | error messages or setting flags. > > I believe you're confused about the semantics. > The issue here is that the *size of object* requested can be > represented. That is independent of whether the machine has enough > memory or not. So, new_handler is a red herring.
The user's new function will be passed a size that has been converted into bytes. If gcc's implementation does multiply-with-saturation instead of straight multiply to get this size, user-defined new operators will work as expected.
