"Richard Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| > I think I'm getting confused. Perhaps you could sum up in a single
| > email the argument for why putting this attribute in our standard
| > headers is safe, even in view of possible replacement in user programs?
|
| My argument goes like "We can safely put attribute malloc on all overloads
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| of new as C++ starts lifetime of a new object in the target and accesses to
| old objects at that location invoke undefined behavior". I claim that you
| cannot construct a testcase with no undefined behavior that has two
| pointers returned from a call to 'new' alias.
I don't think I understand the claim. The C++ does not say anything
about all overloads in terms of aliasing. IT makes claims about
specific `operator new's. Could you elaborate on why it is OK to
annotate all overloads?
-- Gaby
