https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99851
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1) > Confirmed, thanks! Just to make sure I understand: we want a warning for > the operator new declaration (irrespective of its definition) because the > nothrow_t argument suggests it doesn't throw but the absence of noexcept > implies it might. I.e., the warning can be emitted as early as in the C++ > front end. Yes, you understood exactly. Additionally, we should not warn if the function has an explicit noexcept(false). I think it's reasonable to add this to -Wall. In the unlikely event that the user really does want a throwing operator new that takes a std::nothrow_t parameter, I think requiring noexcept(false) to suppress the warning is reasonable. It's confusing/misleading otherwise.
