Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
"Michael N. Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > "Michael N. Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | void buzz(Abc& b)
| > | {
| > | delete &b;
| > | }
| > | | void baz()
| > | {
| > | Abc& a = * new Abc();
| > If no memory is available, the new-expression throws an exception so
| > the dereference never occurs. Check out C++ manuals.
|
| As a systems programmer (embedded), I frequently use "-fno-exceptions".
| What behavior can I expect under these circumstances?
You have to manually check the return value of new. There is no
substitute for that. At least, if you don't want to invoke that kind
of undefined behaviour.
Fine. I must relent and remain surprised.
Going back to the root of this discussion, however:
| Joe Buck wrote:
| > Another is the "delete" operator. It must first check that the
| > argument is null; it only calls the underlying memory allocator
| > if it is not.
I would simply expect the underlying memory allocator to be
invoked regardless of whether or not a pointer was null, but
honestly, in my line of work I rarely use the delete operator.
--
Michael N. Moran (h) 770 516 7918
5009 Old Field Ct. (c) 678 521 5460
Kennesaw, GA, USA 30144 http://mnmoran.org
"So often times it happens, that we live our lives in chains
and we never even know we have the key."
The Eagles, "Already Gone"
The Beatles were wrong: 1 & 1 & 1 is 1
