Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | 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?
No, it does not. The reason is 3.7.3.1/2 [...] If the request succeeds, the value returned shall be a nonnull pointer value (4.10) p0 different from any previously returned value p1, unless that value p1 was subsequently passed to an operator delete. -- Gaby
