Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "handler_".
Did you mean:
handler
2008 May 05
0
[LLVMdev] optimization assumes malloc return is non-null
...2 In particular, the effects are undefined in the following cases:
--for replacement functions (_lib.new.delete_), if the
installed
replacement function does not implement the semantics of the
appli-
cable Required behavior paragraph.
--for handler functions (_lib.new.handler_,
_lib.terminate.handler_,
_lib.unexpected.handler_), if the installed handler function
does
not implement the semantics of the applicable Required
behavior
paragraph
These are meant to constrain the replacements as I've described.
> No, because both "dele...
2008 May 01
3
[LLVMdev] optimization assumes malloc return is non-null
(Hi Mike!)
On May 1, 2008, at 6:11 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Apr 30, 2008, at 9:26 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>> Personally to me, I have a bigger axe to grind with C++ operator new.
>> AFAIK, the standard doesn't give leeway to do a number of interesting
>> optimizations for new/delete because the user is explicitly allowed
>> to
>> override them and the std