https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29164
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
--- Comment #10 from Andreas dot Kowarz at tu-dresden dot de 2007-03-12
09:30 ---
THS (The Holy Standard :-) ) 3.7.4.2/3 reads to me that for standard library
implementations the delete operators must be called in any case but return
immediately if the first argument is NULL => NULL-che
--- Comment #9 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2007-03-11 03:47
---
In fact, I'm having trouble reproducing the problem when operator delete []
returns anything BUT NULL. It's as if, the actual call to operator delete []
is guarded by a NULL check. Now, if I'm RTHS (reading the h
--- Comment #8 from Andreas dot Kowarz at tu-dresden dot de 2007-03-09
09:37 ---
It seems that the bug triggers only when returning NULL in the new operators.
Returning something different ( tested with (void *)1 ) is a workaround for the
problem. Checking for not returning NULL in the
--- Comment #7 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2007-03-08 23:41
---
Subject: Re: Overloaded operator delete[] doesn't get called
> Above, in operator new[], If WTF is false, returning NULL, I reproduce the
> same error (missing call to class operator delete []). If WTF is true
>
--- Comment #6 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2007-03-08 22:58
---
Subject: Re: Overloaded operator delete[] doesn't get called
This following test case is 'interesting':
>8 snip 8<-
#include
using std::cout;
class one_array_only {
private:
--- Comment #5 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2007-03-08 21:49
---
Ouch, this one seems particularly nasty to me... seeings as this isn't a
regression (at least from 2.95), I don't expect this to be fixed for 4.2. Is
there any chance of this getting attention on the (4.3) mainlin
--- Comment #4 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-11 03:43 ---
Confirmed. 12.5/4 reads to me as if myclass::operator delete[] should be
called. Indeed icc doesn't call either user defined operator in the
array case. I think that's just a convergence of bugs, though.
This appears to
--- Comment #3 from Andreas dot Kowarz at tu-dresden dot de 2006-09-21
11:59 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> EDG ends up not even calling the overloaded delete. Looking at the std I can
> see no reason why your program should not use the overloaded deletes.
>
For the moment, I can wor
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-21 11:25 ---
EDG ends up not even calling the overloaded delete. Looking at the std I can
see no reason why your program should not use the overloaded deletes.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29164
--- Comment #1 from Andreas dot Kowarz at tu-dresden dot de 2006-09-21
10:47 ---
*** Bug 29163 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29164
11 matches
Mail list logo
