Hi,
I would like to reopen the discussion for pr/15795, or at least get
clarification on the current resolution of WONTFIX.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15795
Let me state right at the beginning that I am also volunteering to do
the actual work to come up with an agreed solution an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> - the default versions of operator new and the aligned version of
> operator new should be defined in the same section. That way,
> when a user overrides the default operator new, they will get
> a link error (duplicate definitions of new) unless they als
* Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-10 10:15]:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > - the default versions of operator new and the aligned version of
> > operator new should be defined in the same section. That way,
> > when a user overrides the default operator new, they will
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we are willing to consider an ABI change, I think an approach that
allows new to call some form of memalign would be better than having the
compiler force alignment after calling new.
Are we open to making an ABI change?
Personally, I think an ABI change, at the
