[PATCH] D133341: [C++] [Coroutines] Prefer aligned (de)allocation for coroutines - implement the option2 of P2014R0

[Chuanqi Xu via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

ChuanqiXu marked 2 inline comments as done.
ChuanqiXu added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/coroutine-alloc-4.cpp:49
+    void return_value(int) {}
+    void *operator new(std::size_t, std::align_val_t) noexcept;
+    void *operator new(std::size_t) noexcept;
----------------
ychen wrote:
> ChuanqiXu wrote:
> > ychen wrote:
> > > Like this test case, please add additional test cases to check the expected look-up order, one test for each consecutive pair should be good.
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > void* T::operator new  ( std::size_t count, std::align_val_t al, user-defined-args... );
> > > void* T::operator new  ( std::size_t count, std::align_val_t al);
> > > void* T::operator new  ( std::size_t count, user-defined-args... );
> > > void* T::operator new  ( std::size_t count);
> > > void* operator new  ( std::size_t count, std::align_val_t al );
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > 
> > Yeah, I'm testing this in CodeGenCoroutines. (It is hard to test the selection in Sema Test)
> Thanks for adding the overload. I think the `noexcept` on operator new is not necessary. Strictly speaking, it is not a conforming API.
The noexcept here is necessary. The specs says the allocation function should have a noexcept specifier if get_return_object_on_allocation_failure presents.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D133341/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D133341