From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 139053858C52; Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:05:41 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 139053858C52
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1697040341;
	bh=zatUCP+l4Ot8xWmY7Pf3zV3zaqiAibRPi3Jis2/ysRI=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=otZ3jKjxGr6+/tF3uWYwRARzgEdsIGimFjWvNakaJ+W1vLKq9qI2LhLHISQUv5bVU
	 nNxqA16xFfMT/BnBtDfREtyghsEkygP05mhZAkw5J4BNDEMPEpKCa6/eN0k2X0cEcA
	 cl99kTJbW/X6frrojLzpbTk0/aKTv3CI2L8mQRPA=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/111773] Inconsistent optimization of replaced operator
 new()
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:05:40 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-111773-4-7Yy85sDBhL@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111773-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111773-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D111773

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I think both of these are valid things to do according to the standard and =
the
requirements of operator new.=