On Sep 7, 2013, at 12:37 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net>
wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Sep 2013, Mike Stump wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 7, 2013, at 3:33 AM, Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> this patch teaches the compiler that operator new, when it can throw,
>>>> isn't allowed to return a null pointer.
>>>
>>>
>>> You sure:
>>>
>>> @item -fcheck-new
>>> @opindex fcheck-new
>>> Check that the pointer returned by @code{operator new} is non-null
>>> before attempting to modify the storage allocated. This check is
>>> normally unnecessary because the C++ standard specifies that
>>> @code{operator new} only returns @code{0} if it is declared
>>> @samp{throw()}, in which case the compiler always checks the
>>> return value even without this option. In all other cases, when
>>> @code{operator new} has a non-empty exception specification, memory
>>> exhaustion is signalled by throwing @code{std::bad_alloc}. See also
>>> @samp{new (nothrow)}.
>>>
>>> ?
>>
>>
>> Thanks, I didn't know that option. But it doesn't do the same.
>
> Indeed.
Can this throw:
void *operator new (long unsigned int s) {
return 0;
}
? Is this allowed to return 0?
