In article <9334900.28708@mulga.cs.mu.oz.au>,
Fergus Henderson <fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
>jamshid@ses.com (Jamshid Afshar) writes:
>>Neither the ARM or the June WP require (allow?) the
>>implementation to define in <new.h> an overloaded `operator new()'
>>taking a void pointer.
>
>That is true, but the June WP is not the standard and neither is the ARM.
>The ARM in particular says almost nothing about the standard library.

The ARM does discuss <new.h> and its function set_new_handler() in
12.5 commentary.  It also shows example code using and defining:

 void* operator new(size_t, void*);

Therefore, I would say compilers claiming ARM conformance were wrong
in defining this overloaded `operator new()' in <new.h>.

But, I was wrong when I said the June WP does not allow <new.h> to
define the overloaded `operator new()'.  In fact, it requires it in
17.1.1.3.  Sorry for the confusion.

Jamshid Afshar
jamshid@ses.com