On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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 Weird... well, OK then. The indentation in SemaExprCXX.cpp in your latest patch looks a bit off (maybe you ran diff with -b or -w?), otherwise LGTM.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
