--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot> ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> Yes, I remember we discussed the topic about the user-provided new/delete
> implementations. Can please Jason or Jonathan comment about the test-case?

The testcase is certainly valid.  The issue is we're matching new/delete
pairs by means of dataflow (the new resulting pointer is fed to the delete)
and identify new/delete by the decls flag.  But that doesn't catch the case
in this PR where there is a mismatch between the new/delete calls.

Now - the question is if whether class-specific operator new/delete even
have to "match" in this sense or how it's possible to "match" at all.

I think the frontend has to provide some "link" between the new/delete
decls to make this work (which is then quite heavy - an extra pointer in
function decls) :/

Reply via email to