jankratochvil added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47492#1122080, @labath wrote:
> It doesn't look like your code verifies that the user hasn't replaced the > global `operator new` by defining a custom version. > http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/new/operator_new: I asked about it in the code, I see I could find it is permitted: // Is permitted a symbol interposition of ::operator new to verify even that? > if libstdc++ exposed a non-weak alias to its `operator new` and then > `shrink_to_fit` did a runtime check like `if(&__standard_operator_new == > &::operator new)`. Yes, that is what I planned to write if the symbol interpoisiton is really permitted. > That seems like a huge hack. Yes but possible. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D47492 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
