On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> #include <stdio.h> >> #include <stdlib.h> >> >> struct arbitrary_t {} arbitrary; >> >> void *operator new[]( size_t s, arbitrary_t ) throw() { return ::malloc( s >> ); } >> >> struct S { >> void *operator new( size_t s, arbitrary_t ) throw() { return ::malloc( s >> ); } >> }; >> >> int main() { >> S *s = new (arbitrary) S[2]; >> } >> >> This will yield a call to the global operator new[] instead of the >> class-specific operator new. Using new instead of new[] yields a call >> to the matching class-specific operator new still. So I think my test >> will have to move down below the check for a global operator new: >> >> <look for member operator new> >> <look for global operator new> >> +if (not found && looking for array new && MS mode) >> + <switch to looking for non-array new> >> + <look for global operator new> >> >> If you agree, then I'll make the changes and add another test to >> CodeGenCXX to ensure we're calling the proper one. > > > What happens if you remove the global array new? Is the class-specific > non-array new used then?
You get an error: F:\Aaron Ballman\Desktop\test6.cpp(13) : error C2660: 'operator new' : function does not take 2 arguments ~Aaron _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
