array new-expressions: proposal

[Jason Merrill]

>>>>> Martin von Loewis <loewis at informatik.hu-berlin.de> writes:

 >> We could just put in 16-byte padding for all types, but I think that's
 >> a waste.  There's no reason to do it.  It's just as easy to use 8-
 >> byte padding in general, and 16 only when we have to.

 > I'd like to repeat my proposal that there is *no padding* if the type
 > does not have a destructor. In that case, you could use the outcome of
 > operator new directly for arrays of char and unsigned char; the
 > multiple mentioned in 5.3.4/10 would be 0.

Agreed.  So there's no need for a special case.

Jason