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 B8E14385DC0E; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 20:34:12 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B8E14385DC0E
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1586810052;
 bh=9JNW3Xe+XoJjAGKnDTKKK3Tw/mB061qseXRG2rfC0eA=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=LA7cFPLa7vyc70n2bivo00TPdRm65MhcVRf/TE/VKfgqI+GE0Cp8tdXavYnmlW5mK
 zoWGmfKrcoaTwikALPfd7GcaknWDCRG7wT7gzTf2cQijF60xmPkBQeYaikxYhAQ3bC
 mQIkZ7wxYGBTQ6fIaJpbeVUNlytPr65GDMMXCM3Q=
From: "msebor at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/71218] Add a warning about "new T[integer-literal]"
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 20:34:12 +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: 7.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
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: cc
Message-ID: <bug-71218-4-4TujLVicoP@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-71218-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-71218-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 20:34:12 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D71218

Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Rather than warning for benign but inefficient code I'd find it more friend=
ly
if GCC optimized it instead (if possible of course).  In this case, it shou=
ld
be possible to rewrite it as suggested (i.e., turn dynamic allocation into
automatic).  A warning would then be useful if the automatic rewrite wasn't
possible for some reason.

Conversely, it could also turn stack allocation into dynamic for very large
sizes (under some option controlling the cut-off point).  This would be
especially useful for VLAs.=