[PATCH] Fallback to operator new for MSVC compatibility

[Aaron Ballman]

Thanks!  Corrected the indentation, and applied in r182905.

~Aaron

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> #include <stdio.h>
>> >> #include <stdlib.h>
>> >>
>> >> struct arbitrary_t {} arbitrary;
>> >>
>> >> void *operator new[]( size_t s, arbitrary_t ) throw() { return
>> >> ::malloc( s
>> >> ); }
>> >>
>> >> struct S {
>> >>   void *operator new( size_t s, arbitrary_t ) throw() { return
>> >> ::malloc( s
>> >> ); }
>> >> };
>> >>
>> >> int main() {
>> >>   S *s = new (arbitrary) S[2];
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> This will yield a call to the global operator new[] instead of the
>> >> class-specific operator new.  Using new instead of new[] yields a call
>> >> to the matching class-specific operator new still.  So I think my test
>> >> will have to move down below the check for a global operator new:
>> >>
>> >>  <look for member operator new>
>> >>  <look for global operator new>
>> >> +if (not found && looking for array new && MS mode)
>> >> +  <switch to looking for non-array new>
>> >> +  <look for global operator new>
>> >>
>> >> If you agree, then I'll make the changes and add another test to
>> >> CodeGenCXX to ensure we're calling the proper one.
>> >
>> >
>> > What happens if you remove the global array new? Is the class-specific
>> > non-array new used then?
>>
>> You get an error:
>>
>> F:\Aaron Ballman\Desktop\test6.cpp(13) : error C2660: 'operator new' :
>> function
>> does not take 2 arguments
>
>
> Weird... well, OK then.
>
> The indentation in SemaExprCXX.cpp in your latest patch looks a bit off
> (maybe you ran diff with -b or -w?), otherwise LGTM.