> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 10:29 PM
> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] STDCXX-77
>
> Farid Zaripov wrote:
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From
Farid Zaripov wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 7:11 PM
To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] STDCXX-77
I have one concern with the introduction of dynamic
initialization
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 7:11 PM
> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] STDCXX-77
>
> I have one concern with the introduction of dynamic
>
Farid Zaripov wrote:
Attached is a patch to make operator new on MSVC conforming to the C++
Standard.
I have one concern with the introduction of dynamic initialization
and the pragma into the library. First, our (undocumented) design
goal is to avoid requiring dynamic initialization in the li
Attached is a patch to make operator new on MSVC conforming to the C++
Standard.
ChangeLog:
* _config-msvcrt.h: #undefine _RWSTD_NO_NEW_THROWS and
_RWSTD_NO_NEW_OFLOW_SAFE macros if they're #defined.
* memory.cpp (__rw_new_handler_imp): Throw std::bad_alloc() if no user
handler installed.