ChuanqiXu marked 2 inline comments as done.
ChuanqiXu added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/coroutine-alloc-4.cpp:49
+ void return_value(int) {}
+ void *operator new(std::size_t, std::align_val_t) noexcept;
+ void *operator new(std::size_t) noexcept;
----------------
ychen wrote:
> ChuanqiXu wrote:
> > ychen wrote:
> > > Like this test case, please add additional test cases to check the
> > > expected look-up order, one test for each consecutive pair should be good.
> > >
> > > ```
> > > void* T::operator new ( std::size_t count, std::align_val_t al,
> > > user-defined-args... );
> > > void* T::operator new ( std::size_t count, std::align_val_t al);
> > > void* T::operator new ( std::size_t count, user-defined-args... );
> > > void* T::operator new ( std::size_t count);
> > > void* operator new ( std::size_t count, std::align_val_t al );
> > > ```
> > >
> > >
> > Yeah, I'm testing this in CodeGenCoroutines. (It is hard to test the
> > selection in Sema Test)
> Thanks for adding the overload. I think the `noexcept` on operator new is not
> necessary. Strictly speaking, it is not a conforming API.
The noexcept here is necessary. The specs says the allocation function should
have a noexcept specifier if get_return_object_on_allocation_failure presents.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D133341/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D133341
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
