public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c/65350] New: [C++14] operator new[] should not be called if # of initializer elements exceeds # of elements @ 2015-03-08 16:49 kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com 2015-03-08 16:50 ` [Bug c/65350] " kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com ` (4 more replies) 0 siblings, 5 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com @ 2015-03-08 16:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65350 Bug ID: 65350 Summary: [C++14] operator new[] should not be called if # of initializer elements exceeds # of elements Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com Please see the sample code below. ========================== sample code ========================== #include <iostream> #include <new> void* operator new[](std::size_t size) { std::cout << "my operator new[](" << size << ")" << std::endl; return ::operator new(size); } int main() { int i = 1; try { int* p = new int[i]{ 1, 2 }; delete[] p; } catch (const std::bad_array_new_length& e) { std::cout << e.what() << std::endl; } } ========================== sample code ========================== ========================== output ========================== my operator new[](4) std::bad_array_new_length ========================== output ========================== cf. http://melpon.org/wandbox/permlink/tQFp5fpPXT5mZu34 The C++14 standard 5.3.4[expr.new]/p.7 says, The expression in a noptr-new-declarator is erroneous if: ... --- the new-initializer is a braced-init-list and the number of array elements for which initializers are provided (including the terminating '\0' in a string literal (2.13.5)) exceeds the number of elements to initialize. ... Otherwise, a new-expression with an erroneous expression **does not call an allocation function** and terminates by throwing an exception of a type that would match a handler (15.3) of type std::bad_array_new_length (18.6.2.2). ... (emphasis mine) So, I think that the sample code above should output only ========================== output ========================== std::bad_array_new_length ========================== output ========================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/65350] [C++14] operator new[] should not be called if # of initializer elements exceeds # of elements 2015-03-08 16:49 [Bug c/65350] New: [C++14] operator new[] should not be called if # of initializer elements exceeds # of elements kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com @ 2015-03-08 16:50 ` kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com 2015-03-13 3:51 ` [Bug c++/65350] " hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com @ 2015-03-08 16:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65350 --- Comment #1 from Mitsuru Kariya <kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com> --- Created attachment 34985 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34985&action=edit g++ -v ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/65350] [C++14] operator new[] should not be called if # of initializer elements exceeds # of elements 2015-03-08 16:49 [Bug c/65350] New: [C++14] operator new[] should not be called if # of initializer elements exceeds # of elements kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com 2015-03-08 16:50 ` [Bug c/65350] " kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com @ 2015-03-13 3:51 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-03-13 10:15 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-03-13 3:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65350 Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org Component|c |c++ --- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Correcting component as pointed out by NightStrike. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/65350] [C++14] operator new[] should not be called if # of initializer elements exceeds # of elements 2015-03-08 16:49 [Bug c/65350] New: [C++14] operator new[] should not be called if # of initializer elements exceeds # of elements kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com 2015-03-08 16:50 ` [Bug c/65350] " kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com 2015-03-13 3:51 ` [Bug c++/65350] " hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-03-13 10:15 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-08-09 21:09 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-09-07 5:17 ` gayathri.gottumukkala.27 at gmail dot com 4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-03-13 10:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65350 Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed| |2015-03-13 Ever confirmed|0 |1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/65350] [C++14] operator new[] should not be called if # of initializer elements exceeds # of elements 2015-03-08 16:49 [Bug c/65350] New: [C++14] operator new[] should not be called if # of initializer elements exceeds # of elements kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2015-03-13 10:15 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-08-09 21:09 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-09-07 5:17 ` gayathri.gottumukkala.27 at gmail dot com 4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-08-09 21:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65350 Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |wrong-code --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Clang gets it way wrong (-1): my operator new[](18446744073709551615) caught unkown exception ICC gets it right though: std::bad_array_new_length So I think GCC ordering is just wrong. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/65350] [C++14] operator new[] should not be called if # of initializer elements exceeds # of elements 2015-03-08 16:49 [Bug c/65350] New: [C++14] operator new[] should not be called if # of initializer elements exceeds # of elements kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2021-08-09 21:09 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-09-07 5:17 ` gayathri.gottumukkala.27 at gmail dot com 4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: gayathri.gottumukkala.27 at gmail dot com @ 2023-09-07 5:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65350 Gayathri Gottumukkala <gayathri.gottumukkala.27 at gmail dot com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gayathri.gottumukkala.27@gm | |ail.com --- Comment #4 from Gayathri Gottumukkala <gayathri.gottumukkala.27 at gmail dot com> --- "cout" statement is executed before the exception is raised, hence two lines are printed as output. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-09-07 5:17 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2015-03-08 16:49 [Bug c/65350] New: [C++14] operator new[] should not be called if # of initializer elements exceeds # of elements kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com 2015-03-08 16:50 ` [Bug c/65350] " kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com 2015-03-13 3:51 ` [Bug c++/65350] " hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-03-13 10:15 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-08-09 21:09 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-09-07 5:17 ` gayathri.gottumukkala.27 at gmail dot com
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).