On Sep 7, 2013, at 5:34 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net>
wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
> If that is supposed to be a definition for the global function 'operator new',
> then it fails the requirement of the C++ standards since 1998.
And that is irrelevant to the point at hand. I'll note that you failed to
answer both questions. The answer is, the declaration of the function is not
no throw, so by declaration, that operator new can throw (though, this
definition will never throw). And yes, it is allowed to return 0 because the
language selected by the option informs the compiler of that. Surely since I
pointed out the existence of the option, you know what it is for, right? Were
you able to read and understand the option or not?
