blob: 78f021144b2e19c1d8f91534cf0c6b0242e8dec7 [file] [log] [blame]
// RUN: %check_clang_tidy %s misc-new-delete-overloads %t
typedef decltype(sizeof(int)) size_t;
struct S {
// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+1]]:9: warning: declaration of 'operator new' has no matching declaration of 'operator delete' at the same scope [misc-new-delete-overloads]
void *operator new(size_t size) noexcept;
// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+1]]:9: warning: declaration of 'operator new[]' has no matching declaration of 'operator delete[]' at the same scope
void *operator new[](size_t size) noexcept;
};
// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+1]]:7: warning: declaration of 'operator new' has no matching declaration of 'operator delete' at the same scope
void *operator new(size_t size) noexcept(false);
struct T {
// Sized deallocations are not enabled by default, and so this new/delete pair
// does not match. However, we expect only one warning, for the new, because
// the operator delete is a placement delete and we do not warn on mismatching
// placement operations.
// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+1]]:9: warning: declaration of 'operator new' has no matching declaration of 'operator delete' at the same scope
void *operator new(size_t size) noexcept;
void operator delete(void *ptr, size_t) noexcept; // ok only if sized deallocation is enabled
};
struct U {
void *operator new(size_t size) noexcept;
void operator delete(void *ptr) noexcept;
void *operator new[](size_t) noexcept;
void operator delete[](void *) noexcept;
};
struct Z {
// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+1]]:8: warning: declaration of 'operator delete' has no matching declaration of 'operator new' at the same scope
void operator delete(void *ptr) noexcept;
// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+1]]:8: warning: declaration of 'operator delete[]' has no matching declaration of 'operator new[]' at the same scope
void operator delete[](void *ptr) noexcept;
};
struct A {
void *operator new(size_t size, Z) noexcept; // ok, placement new
};
struct B {
void operator delete(void *ptr, A) noexcept; // ok, placement delete
};
// It is okay to have a class with an inaccessible free store operator.
struct C {
void *operator new(size_t, A) noexcept; // ok, placement new
private:
void operator delete(void *) noexcept;
};
// It is also okay to have a class with a delete free store operator.
struct D {
void *operator new(size_t, A) noexcept; // ok, placement new
void operator delete(void *) noexcept = delete;
};
struct E : U {
void *operator new(size_t) noexcept; // okay, we inherit operator delete from U
};
struct F : S {
// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+1]]:9: warning: declaration of 'operator new' has no matching declaration of 'operator delete' at the same scope
void *operator new(size_t) noexcept;
};
class G {
void operator delete(void *) noexcept;
};
struct H : G {
// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE+1]]:9: warning: declaration of 'operator new' has no matching declaration of 'operator delete' at the same scope
void *operator new(size_t) noexcept; // base class operator is inaccessible
};
template <typename Base> struct Derived : Base {
void operator delete(void *);
};