http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59875
--- Comment #4 from josephlawrie at hotmail dot com --- > To let the compiler know that you want the standard operator delete (which > does nothing on 0), I am not sure what should be done. It is a different > issue, which you would need to ask about in a separate PR. > I think libstdc++ should provide an option to get > inline definitions of those functions (I know the standard forbids them to > be inline), possibly even omitting the new_handler code. Thank you - I realise I was originally very unclear, but being able to get "an inline version" was the intention of posting this hear. Basically link time optimization (inconvienient) or static linking (also inconvenient) are the only correct solitions, as others would make the functions non-replacable. My concern was that being unable to specify default delete could prevent optimization in some cases (even when building statically), but according to you this is not the case in the example, as it is the loop unrolling that prevents the optimization here. Thank you.
