On 19/02/16 18:56 -0300, Daniel Gutson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 11/10/2015 01:10 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 06/11/15 09:59 +, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 11/06/2015 01:56 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 5 November 2015 at 23:31, Daniel Gutson
The issue
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 11/10/2015 01:10 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 06/11/15 09:59 +, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>> On 11/06/2015 01:56 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 5 November 2015 at 23:31, Daniel Gutson
>>>
> The issue is, as I understand it, to do t
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 06/11/15 09:59 +, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>
>> On 11/06/2015 01:56 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5 November 2015 at 23:31, Daniel Gutson
>>
>>
The issue is, as I understand it, to do the actual work of operator
new, i.
On 05/11/15 16:22, Daniel Gutson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:20 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>On 4 November 2015 at 02:11, Daniel Gutson wrote:
>>Since this is a nothrow new, we thought that probably the system
>>might not be exceptions-friendly (such as certain embedded systems),
>>so we
On 11/10/2015 01:10 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 06/11/15 09:59 +, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 11/06/2015 01:56 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> On 5 November 2015 at 23:31, Daniel Gutson
>>
The issue is, as I understand it, to do the actual work of operator
new, i.e. allocate memory. I
On 06/11/15 09:59 +, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 11/06/2015 01:56 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 5 November 2015 at 23:31, Daniel Gutson
The issue is, as I understand it, to do the actual work of operator
new, i.e. allocate memory. It should force
us to copy most of the code of the original code
On 11/06/2015 01:56 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 5 November 2015 at 23:31, Daniel Gutson
>> The issue is, as I understand it, to do the actual work of operator
>> new, i.e. allocate memory. It should force
>> us to copy most of the code of the original code of operator new,
>> which may change
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 6 November 2015 at 09:02, Daniel Gutson
wrote:
El 5/11/2015 22:56, "Jonathan Wakely" escribió:
It can just call malloc, and the replacement operator delete can call
free.
It can but the actual code of operator new is optimized and more comple
On 6 November 2015 at 09:02, Daniel Gutson
wrote:
>
> El 5/11/2015 22:56, "Jonathan Wakely" escribió:
>>
>> On 5 November 2015 at 23:31, Daniel Gutson
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Jonathan Wakely
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 5 November 2015 at 20:52, Daniel Gutson wrote:
>> >>> Real u
On 5 November 2015 at 23:31, Daniel Gutson
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 5 November 2015 at 20:52, Daniel Gutson wrote:
>>> Real use cases: statistics and logging. It's a (one time) callback
>>> reporting that something went wrong,
>>> but not intended to f
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 5 November 2015 at 20:52, Daniel Gutson wrote:
>> Real use cases: statistics and logging. It's a (one time) callback
>> reporting that something went wrong,
>> but not intended to fix things e.g. by attempting to free more memory.
>
> Why
On 5 November 2015 at 20:52, Daniel Gutson wrote:
> Real use cases: statistics and logging. It's a (one time) callback
> reporting that something went wrong,
> but not intended to fix things e.g. by attempting to free more memory.
Why can't that be done by replacing operator new with a user-define
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:20 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 4 November 2015 at 02:11, Daniel Gutson wrote:
>> Since this is a nothrow new, we thought that probably the system
>> might not be exceptions-friendly (such as certain embedded systems),
>> so we wanted to provide the new_handler the abil
I share your concerns, but I'm also sympathetic to the changes that
the Taller Technologies team are trying to make, to allow libstdc++ to
be more useful in exception-free systems.
At the very least the patch to doc/xml/manual/configure.xml must
document that this option enables behaviour that vi
On Tue, 3 Nov 2015, Mike Stump wrote:
On Nov 3, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The "as if" requirement implies that any observable effects of
"the (possibly replaced) ordinary version" must be preserved.
The repeated calls to the new handler are among such effects.
Unless the standard
On 4 November 2015 at 11:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 4 November 2015 at 02:11, Daniel Gutson wrote:
>> Since this is a nothrow new, we thought that probably the system
>> might not be exceptions-friendly (such as certain embedded systems),
>> so we wanted to provide the new_handler the ability
On 4 November 2015 at 02:11, Daniel Gutson wrote:
> Since this is a nothrow new, we thought that probably the system
> might not be exceptions-friendly (such as certain embedded systems),
> so we wanted to provide the new_handler the ability to do something else
> other than trying to allocate memo
On 4 November 2015 at 01:55, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 11/03/2015 05:35 AM, Aurelio Remonda wrote:
>>
>> Currently, whenever operator new (std::nothrow) fails to allocate memory,
>> it'll
>> check if there is a new-handler function available. If there is, it'll
>> call
>> the handler and then try to
On 11/03/2015 04:08 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Nov 3, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The "as if" requirement implies that any observable effects of
"the (possibly replaced) ordinary version" must be preserved.
The repeated calls to the new handler are among such effects.
Unless the stand
On Nov 3, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> The "as if" requirement implies that any observable effects of
> "the (possibly replaced) ordinary version" must be preserved.
> The repeated calls to the new handler are among such effects.
Unless the standard is fixed to say that one cannot obse
Besides violating the requirement of the C++ standard, replacing
Could you please point us to the relevant section where this behavior
is enforced? We couldn't find it so far.
The Required behavior of the nothrow operator new reads:
This nothrow version of operator new returns a pointer obt
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 11/03/2015 05:35 AM, Aurelio Remonda wrote:
>>
>> Currently, whenever operator new (std::nothrow) fails to allocate memory,
>> it'll
>> check if there is a new-handler function available. If there is, it'll
>> call
>> the handler and then tr
On 11/03/2015 05:35 AM, Aurelio Remonda wrote:
Currently, whenever operator new (std::nothrow) fails to allocate memory, it'll
check if there is a new-handler function available. If there is, it'll call
the handler and then try to allocate again. Otherwise, it'll return a null
pointer.
This ret
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Finally, since you are touching acinclude.m4 you should
> normally run autoreconf, mention in the ChangeLog the changed regenerated
> files and eventually commit those changes too (like the ChangeLog entries,
> those aren't normally part of t
Aurelio Remonda writes:
> aurelio-remonda@Remonda-PC:~/gcc/libstdc++-v3$ autoreconf
> configure.ac:74: error: Autoconf version 2.65 or higher is required
Make sure you have automake 1.11.6.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sch...@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/03/2015 01:35 PM, Aurelio Remonda wrote:
>>
>> diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog
>> index 5b16ca2..a1cd0d3 100644
>> --- a/ChangeLog
>> +++ b/ChangeLog
>> @@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
>> +2015-10-30 Aurelio Remonda
>> +
>> + * lib
Hi,
On 11/03/2015 01:35 PM, Aurelio Remonda wrote:
diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog
index 5b16ca2..a1cd0d3 100644
--- a/ChangeLog
+++ b/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
+2015-10-30 Aurelio Remonda
+
+ * libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4: add enable_new_opnt_no_allocation_retry
+ flag definiti
Currently, whenever operator new (std::nothrow) fails to allocate memory, it'll
check if there is a new-handler function available. If there is, it'll call
the handler and then try to allocate again. Otherwise, it'll return a null
pointer.
This retrying behavior may not always be desirable. If th
28 matches
Mail list logo
