https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86954
--- Comment #4 from frankhb1989 at gmail dot com --- Well, actually I'm not sure if the original implementation has done the right thing, as I don't find that the standard has requirement to specify that the replaced definitions must acknowledge the fact nothrow_t overloads should only be called on the specified condition (... and if so, whether it worth an LWG issue). But that still seems suspicious to me, because symmetry of call between nothrow_t placement ::operator new and ::operator delete does not exist in the language indeed, so that seems like an unintentional use unless it is documented elsewhere. On the other hand, the change here towards to a simpler and undoubtedly conformant way. BTW, I do know the feature is deprecated in C++17 and removed in C++2a. I read the paper of deprecation. It is plausible to be removed from the standard, but not a must - not with a very strong reason. However, I am sure I do need that feature so I have to reinvent my wheels... as done internally by various standard library implementations. (More specifically, I need std::_Temporary_buffer in libstdc++ and MSVC's current <algorithm> implementation, or at least something equivalent to std::__return_temporary_buffer in libc++, but surely I can't rely on them directly.) At least a raw call of allocation function does not always express the intended call site requirements clearly like std::get_temporary_buffer, so users who want to make it clear have to afford the extra layer of an abstraction. Arguably, the removal will bloat work for anyone wants that and discourage clearer expression of intentions.
