From -6851693118646739791
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f78e5,20324670690eb3c4
X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-12-21 16:58:39 PST
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psinntp!ses.com!jamshid
From: jamshid@ses.com (Jamshid Afshar)
Subject: Re: Explicit constructor calls
Message-ID: <CIEJ1M.KJn@ses.com>
Summary: <new.h> must declare `operator new(size_t,void*)'
Sender: usenet@ses.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: castro
Organization: SES, Inc., Austin, TX, USA
References: <2dra3p$rob@cat.cis.brown.edu> <9334421.29611@mulga.cs.mu.oz.au> <CHwtvD.4IE@ses.com> <9334900.28708@mulga.cs.mu.oz.au>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 20:17:45 GMT
Lines: 24

In article <9334900.28708@mulga.cs.mu.oz.au>,
Fergus Henderson <fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
>jamshid@ses.com (Jamshid Afshar) writes:
>>Neither the ARM or the June WP require (allow?) the
>>implementation to define in <new.h> an overloaded `operator new()'
>>taking a void pointer.
>
>That is true, but the June WP is not the standard and neither is the ARM.
>The ARM in particular says almost nothing about the standard library.

The ARM does discuss <new.h> and its function set_new_handler() in
12.5 commentary.  It also shows example code using and defining:

	void* operator new(size_t, void*);

Therefore, I would say compilers claiming ARM conformance were wrong
in defining this overloaded `operator new()' in <new.h>.

But, I was wrong when I said the June WP does not allow <new.h> to
define the overloaded `operator new()'.  In fact, it requires it in
17.1.1.3.  Sorry for the confusion.

Jamshid Afshar
jamshid@ses.com