Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!microsoft!jimad
From: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ and operator new()
Message-ID: <55828@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 13 Jul 90 23:02:58 GMT
References: <1155@uvicctr.UVic.CA.UUCP>
Reply-To: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 16

In article <1155@uvicctr.UVic.CA.UUCP> mjunkin@uvicctr.UUCP (Michael Junkin) writes:
...
>The intent is that
>    X *x = new X(...);		(1)
>can be used to allocate and construct local objects while
>    X *x = ::new X(...);	(2)
>is used to allocate and construct global objects of class X.
...
>	static void *operator new(size_t);

Interesting.  I tried your example on the compiler I've been playing with,
and it wouldn't accept the static keyword on operator new, even though 
E&S implies such use is permissible, but unnecessary.  Leaving off "static,"
my compiler then acts as you would like.

Sounds to me like one bug each in two compilers.