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:
> > > 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.
> I see. I didn't realize that, before P2014, the way class-specific operator
> new/delete are looked up is already different between coroutine and regular
> routine. Basically, with the normal operator new/delete lookup rules, the
> no-throw and potentially-throw allocation functions may overload, so the
> throw function type must have `std::throw_t` parameter; with the coroutine
> operator new/delete lookup rules, the no-throw and potentially-throw
> allocation functions do not overload since
> `get_return_object_on_allocation_failure` is either found or not found, thus
> the `std::throw_t` parameter is not necessary for the potentially-throw
> allocation function.
>
Yeah, thanks for the explanation.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D133341/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D133341
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
