public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "glisse at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/59894] New: Force use of the default new/delete Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 21:36:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-59894-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59894 Bug ID: 59894 Summary: Force use of the default new/delete Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org Hello, operator new and operator delete are hidden in libsupc++ so they can be easily replaced, either directly in the code, or later by interposing a library. Doing so has a cost, and I have seen people (and done it myself) providing a definition in their code that was roughly equivalent to the standard one, just so it could be inlined. I wonder if we could provide a flag in libstdc++ so that if the user compiles his code with -D_GLIBCXX_FORCE_DEFAULT_ALLOCATION (a better name would be welcome), <new> defines inline versions of the operators. We might even want to skip new_handler in that version, I am not sure. I didn't think too long about the possible drawbacks, but defining the macro would be a pretty clear message from the user that he takes full responsibility for all the consequences. (we are also using, in the same code, extern "C" __typeof(malloc) malloc __attribute__((returns_nonnull)); so it really simplifies, but PR 59875 shows that simplifying operator delete(0) would already be nice) PR 59893 considers a different path using LTO to inline at link time the definition from libsupc++.
next reply other threads:[~2014-01-20 21:36 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2014-01-20 21:36 glisse at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2014-01-20 21:57 ` [Bug libstdc++/59894] " trippels at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-01-20 22:07 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-01-21 9:40 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-02-24 14:01 ` glisse 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-59894-4@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).