public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/101140] [modules] no matching function for call to ‘operator new(sizetype, void*)’ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 14:50:59 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-101140-4-axXSjYHQ5p@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-101140-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101140 Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jason at gcc dot gnu.org, | |ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> --- FWIW I was thinking we might want to perform two-phase name lookup for new-expressions like we do for other operator expressions, wherein unqualified lookup is performed at template definition time, saved inside the expression (via DEPENDENT_OPERATOR_TYPE) and then reused at instantiation time. But name lookup for a new-expression doesn't do unqualified lookup, it does qualified lookup in the global namespace ::. And unlike true two-phase name lookup which prevents operator overloads declared after the template definition from being considered, it seems GCC/Clang/MSVC all consider later-declared global operator new declarations during instantiation of a new-expression: https://godbolt.org/z/o6r9MYbKc. So it seems two-phase name lookup isn't appropriate for new-expressions, and something like your idea is the way to go? I wonder what Jason thinks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-26 14:51 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-06-20 14:52 [Bug c++/101140] New: " ensadc at mailnesia dot com 2021-09-06 11:05 ` [Bug c++/101140] " ensadc at mailnesia dot com 2022-02-11 12:31 ` asynts+bugs at gmail dot com 2024-03-26 13:54 ` nshead at gcc dot gnu.org 2024-03-26 14:50 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2024-03-26 23:54 ` nshead at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-101140-4-axXSjYHQ5p@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).