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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86954
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86954
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Aug 14 20:19:20 2018
New Revision: 263542
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263542=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/86954 use non-placement operator delete
As explained in the PR,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86954
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Arguably this was good defensive programming for C++03. The program could have
replaced operator new(size_t) and operator delete(void*) but not replaced
operator new(size_t, const nothrow_t&) and operator
