http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53225
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-04
20:35:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> I went through the life time issues in detail in prior comments.
Yes, but you don't seem to understand C++, as evidenced by statements like "The
operator, which has been copied into the child via inheritance, i.e. the
child's version of the operator"
> The C++ rules
> for life time of an instance do not apply to those of the life time of a
> class.
Classes don't have a lifetime - I don't know what you're talking about.
> Or are you saying these are not distinct? For what reason is static type
> information known at compile time not available to operator new - which is
> called at run time?
The static type of what?
In "A::operator new" the name "this_type" refers to A::this_type.
> Also, if operator new is to be an such an exception that static type
> information can not be accessed in it, as it can be in every other operator or
> method - then why doesn't the compiler say anything about it? Should there
> not
> be a warning or some sort that an artificial constraint is being applied in
> order to satisfy someone's interpretation of object lifetimes according to the
> standard?
operator new isn't an exception, all member functions work like that.
This report is invalid. Please find somewhere else to learn C++, stackoverflow
is a good place for it, but reporting compiler bugs isn't the right way to
improve your understanding of the language.
