------- Comment #6 from pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2006-09-26 19:00
-------
Subject: Re: inconsistent warning: deleting array
>
>
>
> ------- Comment #5 from sebor at roguewave dot com 2006-09-26 18:56 -------
> You mean something like: if (is_pointer (p)) delete p;
>
> I suppose that could happen but why should it be any different than other
> non-sensical but lexically valid constructs with undefined behavior that
> require a diagnostic today? E.g.:
>
> template <int N>
> void foo () {
> if (0 < N) {
> int array [N];
> ...
> }
> }
That is not undefined behavior, just plain invalid.
>
> Or:
>
> template <class T, class U>
> U* bar (T *p) {
> if (is_convertible<T*, U*>)
> return p;
> return 0;
> }
Likewise. This is a different issue.
> Isn't template metaprogramming the expected solution to this type of a
> problem?
int a[1];
int *b = a;
delete b;
is also undefined but it is hard to reject without having flow contrl inside
the
front-end.
-- pinski
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29185
