* Gabriel Dos Reis: >>> Is this intentional? The equivalent "new char[a][b]" is rejected (as >>> required by the C++ standard). >> >> Is there any reason that g++ should reject your sample program? > > Yes: there is no obvious reason for gratuitous incompatibility in > semantics.
That, and it requires full saturating multiplication support at run-time if we want to fix PR19351 in the most straightforward way (by passing size_t(-1) to the underlying allocator function in case of overflow).
