vsapsai added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D48753#1157907, @Quuxplusone wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D48753#1157695, @EricWF wrote: > > > Why are we doing this? > > > > I can't find the language in the C++03 specification that requires us to > > call an allocators `construct` method if it's present. > > > I think it's being proposed under "quality of implementation." > > It has only just now occurred to me: a quality implementation should probably > never //mismatch// calls to `construct` and `destroy`. Does libc++ currently > call `destroy` in C++03? Does it call `destroy` in C++03 after this patch? > If this patch is making libc++ call `construct` but not `destroy`, that's a > bug. If before this patch libc++ would call `destroy` but not `construct`, > this patch is a bugfix! (And please add a test case for matched pairs of > `construct` and `destroy`.) In C++03 `destroy` isn't called neither before my patch nor after. Will fix that. Though it's harder to find specification for `destroy` in C++03. https://reviews.llvm.org/D48753 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
