From 554fd8c5195424bdbcabf5de30fdc183aba391bd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: upstream source tree Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 20:14:05 -0400 Subject: obtained gcc-4.6.4.tar.bz2 from upstream website; verified gcc-4.6.4.tar.bz2.sig; imported gcc-4.6.4 source tree from verified upstream tarball. downloading a git-generated archive based on the 'upstream' tag should provide you with a source tree that is binary identical to the one extracted from the above tarball. if you have obtained the source via the command 'git clone', however, do note that line-endings of files in your working directory might differ from line-endings of the respective files in the upstream repository. --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/placement5.C | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+) create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/placement5.C (limited to 'gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/placement5.C') diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/placement5.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/placement5.C new file mode 100644 index 000000000..1d540daca --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/placement5.C @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +// 5.3.4/19: If the lookup finds the two-parameter form of a usual +// deallocation function (3.7.4.2) and that function, considered as a +// placement deallocation function, would have been selected as a match for +// the allocation function, the program is ill-formed. + +// But we should only complain about using op delete (void *, size_t) for +// placement delete if it would also be selected for normal delete, not if +// there's also an op delete (void *). + +typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t; + +struct A +{ + A(); + void* operator new (size_t, size_t); + void operator delete (void *, size_t); // { dg-error "non-placement" } +}; + +struct B +{ + B(); + void * operator new (size_t); + void * operator new (size_t, size_t); + void operator delete (void *); + void operator delete (void *, size_t); +}; + +int main() +{ + A* ap = new (24) A; // { dg-error "placement delete" } + B* bp = new (24) B; +} -- cgit v1.2.3