Hi, Thanks for this simple solution. Yet, why isn't this the default when using -fno-exceptions ? Christophe. On 27.09.2007 15:31, Richard Li wrote:
Hi, I tried to redefine the global "new" operator like the following code, and it seems to work. #include <new> void * operator new (size_t n) { return operator new (n, std::nothrow); } void * operator new [] (size_t n) { return operator new [] (n, std::nothrow); } On 9/27/07, Christophe LYON <christophe.lyon@xxxxxx> wrote:Hello, I am compiling a C++ application, which uses the 'new' operator, with exceptions disabled (-fno-exceptions). Yet, the new operator called is the one that throws an exception in case of failure. Why is it so ? Isn't it inconsistent with the -fno-exceptions flag? I imagined that compiling with -fno-exceptions would make the compiler generate calls to new(nothrow) instead. In my case, replacing all calls to new to new(nothrow) in the application is not an option. Thanks, Christophe.
