public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c++/27141] New: Unexpected requirement for usual deallocation function
@ 2006-04-13 8:10 algrant at acm dot org
2006-04-30 7:57 ` [Bug c++/27141] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: algrant at acm dot org @ 2006-04-13 8:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
This code:
struct D {
D() {}
virtual ~D() {}
void operator delete(void*, void*) {}
};
void f() { D d(); }
is rejected with "no suitable 'operator delete' for 'D'".
It is true that the placement deallocation function hides any
"usual" one, but surely it is only necessary for a usual one to
be found when implementing a delete-expression, as described
in 12.5#4. This code is accepted by Comeau and HP aC++ (but
faulted by Sun C++ with a similar error to g++).
--
Summary: Unexpected requirement for usual deallocation function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: algrant at acm dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27141
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/27141] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Unexpected requirement for usual deallocation function
2006-04-13 8:10 [Bug c++/27141] New: Unexpected requirement for usual deallocation function algrant at acm dot org
@ 2006-04-30 7:57 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-05-02 7:20 ` algrant at acm dot org
2006-05-02 7:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-04-30 7:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-30 07:57 -------
I am thinking this is the ABI getting in the way of the C++ standard. In that
the secondary ~D() is getting in the way. The reason I say that is because it
worked with the old ABI in 2.95.3.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Keywords| |rejects-valid
Known to fail| |3.0.4 4.0.0 4.1.0 3.4.0
| |3.3.3
Known to work| |2.95.3
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2006-04-30 07:57:28
date| |
Summary|Unexpected requirement for |[4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression]
|usual deallocation function |Unexpected requirement for
| |usual deallocation function
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27141
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/27141] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Unexpected requirement for usual deallocation function
2006-04-13 8:10 [Bug c++/27141] New: Unexpected requirement for usual deallocation function algrant at acm dot org
2006-04-30 7:57 ` [Bug c++/27141] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-05-02 7:20 ` algrant at acm dot org
2006-05-02 7:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: algrant at acm dot org @ 2006-05-02 7:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from algrant at acm dot org 2006-05-02 07:20 -------
Actually, I now wonder if the g++ 4.1 behavior would be correct
by the proposed resolution of (still open) Core Language Issue 252.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27141
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/27141] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Unexpected requirement for usual deallocation function
2006-04-13 8:10 [Bug c++/27141] New: Unexpected requirement for usual deallocation function algrant at acm dot org
2006-04-30 7:57 ` [Bug c++/27141] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-05-02 7:20 ` algrant at acm dot org
@ 2006-05-02 7:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-05-02 7:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 07:30 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> Actually, I now wonder if the g++ 4.1 behavior would be correct
> by the proposed resolution of (still open) Core Language Issue 252.
It is not still open though. It has been a defect since 2001.
So in reality this is not a defect in GCC.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27141
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-05-02 7:30 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-04-13 8:10 [Bug c++/27141] New: Unexpected requirement for usual deallocation function algrant at acm dot org
2006-04-30 7:57 ` [Bug c++/27141] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-05-02 7:20 ` algrant at acm dot org
2006-05-02 7:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
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).