This is an unofficial snapshot of the ISO/IEC JTC1 SC22 WG21 Core Issues List revision 116a. See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/ for the official list.
2024-12-19
[Accepted as a DR at the November, 2022 meeting.]
Consider:
char *p = static_cast<char*>(operator new[](2)); p = new (p) char[2]; // #1 delete[] p; // #2
Subclause 7.6.2.8 [expr.new] paragraph 16 specifies:
... When a new-expression calls an allocation function and that allocation has not been extended, the new-expression passes the amount of space requested to the allocation function as the first argument of type std::size_t. That argument shall be no less than the size of the object being created; it may be greater than the size of the object being created only if the object is an array and the allocation function is not a non-allocating form (17.6.3.4 [new.delete.placement]). ...
Subclause 7.6.2.9 [expr.delete] paragraph 2 specifies:
... In an array delete expression, the value of the operand of delete may be a null pointer value or a pointer value that resulted from a previous array new-expression. [ Footnote: ... ] If not, the behavior is undefined.
The non-allocating form of the new-expression at #1 is constrained not to place an array cookie at the start of the array. Yet, the array delete appears to be expected to divine that fact.
Proposed resolution (approved by CWG 2022-10-07):
Change in 7.6.2.9 [expr.delete] paragraph 2 as follows:
... In an array delete expression, the value of the operand of delete may be a null pointer value or a pointer value that resulted from a previous array new-expression whose allocation function was not a non-allocating form (17.6.3.4 [new.delete.placement]). [ Footnote: ... ] If not, the behavior is undefined.