On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 04:33:50PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > "Richard Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | On 9/8/07, Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | > I understand, but allowing users to override new means that the actual > | > implementation may not honor the aliasing guarantees of attribute > | > malloc. > | > | Well, you can argue that all hell breaks lose if you do so. A sane ::new > | is required for almost everything :) > > I suspect the question is how to you distinguish a sane new from an an > insane one.
Does it matter? If an insane new hands multiple callers the same memory without an intervening delete, whether or not the compiler optimizes on the assumption that new is sane doesn't matter; the program is still going to break.
