Re: [eigen] [patch] Aligned new/delete

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More Archives ]

can someone with experience with exceptions and overloading new/delete
please review?
I'm incompetent.

2009/5/6 Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> I made the parameter std::nothrow_t unnamed and ... added the (still
> *shame*) missing no-throw delete.
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> This needs review by someone more competent than me in these
>> matters... I just learnt the meaning of the throw() declaration.
>> One remark: the parameter nt is unused, so perhaps make it unnamed to
>> avoid warnings?
>> Benoit
>> 2009/5/6 Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> Two things are covered in this patch.
>>> 1. Each operator new needs its corresponding operator delete. This was
>>> not the case for in-place new/delete.
>>> 2. Operators new were declared with throw() which is not correct since
>>> in the current standard implementation they may throw std::bad_alloc.
>>> The throw() declaration was moved from new to delete which must never
>>> throw.
>>> 3. Added no-throw new/delete. In order to allow user using no-throw
>>> new and delete I just added them. The difference is that instead of
>>> throwing an exception they return 0 in case of an allocation failure.
>>> For the in-place new and delete I piped the calls to the global
>>> in-place new and delete functions since actually no allocation is
>>> performed. It is the job of the user to take care that when using
>>> in-place new and delete the memory is properly aligned.
>>> I ran the unit tests and all besides the new matrix exponential passed
>>> - could not submit to the dashboard since the daily limit is reached.
>>> Regards,
>>> Hauke

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+