On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 13:45, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> The both operator new and operator delete are looked up in the same
> manner. The std does not require a 'matching pair' be found. but it is
> extremely poor form for a class to declare exactly one of operator
> {new,delete}.
There are unfortunately several such example in the standard!
I wonder how much benefit we will really get from trying to make this
optimisation too general.
Just eliding (or coalescing) implicit calls to ::operator new(size_t)
and ::operator delete(void*, size_t) (and the [] and align_val_t forms
of those) probably covers 99% of real cases.
