[new.delete][c.malloc] Properly index operator new and its friends
#8135
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
..., `operator new[]`, and `operator delete[]`
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
These operator functions should be indexed as
\indexlibraryglobal{operator new}etc., like other operator functions. The indices in [new.delete.single] and [new.delete.array] are still imperfect, as there're multiple entries but a single index can only points to one.I believe
operator new/operator deleteshouldn't be indexed in [c.malloc]. So this PR removes the probably improper indices and adds one\ireffor consistency.Fixes #8133.