About five years ago, I reported a bug about an ICE when trying to mangle expressions involving operator new.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-03/msg01417.html http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6057 A three line example exhibiting the ICE is: template <unsigned int> struct helper {}; template <class T> void check( helper<sizeof(new T)>* ); int main() { check<int>(0); } As I understand it, the reason that this has never been fixed is that a full fix requires either an extension/change to the ABI which presumably requires collaboration between the eight organisations that produced it. I'm wondering whether there's any prospect of this happening, and if not, whether GCC should use the vendor extension syntax (v <digit> <source-name>) to provide a fix? As it stands, the ABI's definition of mangling a new expression makes no sense as it has no way of folding the type into the mangled name. (It doesn't even say whether operator new is to be regarded as a unary operator, per the C++ standard, or binary or ternary. In terms of the information needed in the mangled name, it should be ternary as there are placement arguments, the type, and constructor arguments.) Although the bug only manifests in fairly arcane code, it can nevertheless occur in legal code: I've generally encountered it when developing type traits using template metaprogramming. Richard Smith
