On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 11:00:32 GMT, Kim Barrett <kbarr...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Afshin Zafari has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> 8305590: Remove nothrow exception specifications from operator new
>
> src/hotspot/share/prims/jvmtiRawMonitor.hpp line 114:
>
>> 112:
>> 113: // Non-aborting operator new
>> 114: void* operator new(size_t size, const std::nothrow_t&
>> nothrow_constant) throw() {
>
> Hm, now I'm wondering why isn't an `operator delete` to go with this? Or are
> these objects
> never deleted? Otherwise I'd have thought we'd get the same mismatched
> new/delete warning
> you encountered elsewhere. If they're never supposed to be deleted, then
> giving `operator delete`
> a deleted definition here seems appropriate, to prevent accidentally calling
> the CHeapObj function.
This `operator new` just calls the `CHeapObj::operator new` with nothrow
argument. So changing the caller will call the right one in `CHeapObj`. This
object is deleted in
https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/c738c8ea3e9fda87abb03acb599a2433a344db09/src/hotspot/share/prims/jvmtiEnv.cpp#L3699
and this will call the `CHeapObj::operator delete` which is the right one. So
this `operator new` is not needed since I changed the caller.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13498#discussion_r1171457189
