This is the mail archive of the cygwin-patches mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Mar 21 12:35, Peter Foley wrote: > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Corinna Vinschen > <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com> wrote: > > This looks incomplete to me. Don't we have to export the symbol? > > I don't believe so. > As I understand it, if you're overriding the standard c++ delete > implementation, starting with c++14, you also need to provide an > implementation of the sized deallocation operator, which is designed > to increase performance of deallocation if the size of the object to > be deallocated is known. > See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3663.html > However, the sized deallocation operator can simply be defined as an > call to the original delete operator, which simply preserves the > current behavior. But we export these functions as fallback functions to the applications. See libstdcxx_wrapper.cc and the end of cxx.cc. While the comment in cxx.cc claims that this should "not be used in practice", there might be c++14 code ending up with undefined references to the new delete operator, isn't it? https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2009-q3/msg00010.html outlines why these exports were necessary in the first place. Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |