From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-198072-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 5339 invoked by alias); 26 Sep 2006 19:00:51 -0000
Received: (qmail 5273 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Sep 2006 19:00:50 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from bethe.phy.uc.edu (HELO physics.uc.edu) (129.137.4.14)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 19:00:48 +0000
Received: from earth.geop.uc.edu (earth.phy.uc.edu [10.44.11.234]) 	by physics.uc.edu (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k8QJ0jLP029539; 	Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:00:45 -0400
Received: from earth.phy.uc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) 	by earth.geop.uc.edu (8.12.11/8.9.3) with ESMTP id k8QJ0i9Z006104; 	Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:00:44 -0400
Received: (from pinskia@localhost) 	by earth.phy.uc.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id k8QJ0iwL006103; 	Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:00:44 -0400
From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu>
Message-Id: <200609261900.k8QJ0iwL006103@earth.phy.uc.edu>
Subject: Re: [Bug c++/29185] inconsistent warning: deleting array
To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 19:00:00 -0000
Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
In-Reply-To: <20060926185642.2605.qmail@sourceware.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL7]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -2.4 () ALL_TRUSTED
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2006-09/txt/msg02485.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

> 
> 
> 
> ------- Comment #5 from sebor at roguewave dot com  2006-09-26 18:56 -------
> You mean something like: if (is_pointer (p)) delete p;
> 
> I suppose that could happen but why should it be any different than other
> non-sensical but lexically valid constructs with undefined behavior that
> require a diagnostic today? E.g.:
> 
>     template <int N>
>     void foo () {
>         if (0 < N) {
>             int array [N];
>             ...
>         }
>     }

That is not undefined behavior, just plain invalid.

> 
> Or:
> 
>     template <class T, class U>
>     U* bar (T *p) {
>         if (is_convertible<T*, U*>)
>             return p;
>         return 0;
>     }

Likewise.  This is a different issue.

> Isn't template metaprogramming the expected solution to this type of a problem?

int a[1];
int *b = a;
delete b;
is also undefined but it is hard to reject without having flow contrl inside the
front-end.


-- pinski