On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Francisco Jerez <curroje...@riseup.net> wrote: > Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Juha-Pekka Heikkila >> <juhapekka.heikk...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> There is no error path available thus instead of giving >>> realloc possibility to fail use new which will never >>> return null pointer and throws bad_alloc on failure. >> >> The problem was that we weren't checking if realloc failed. >> >> Why is the solution to change from malloc/free to new/delete? > > The new operator is guaranteed not to return NULL by the C++ standard. > Aside from that Juha-Pekka's code seems more idiomatic to me than > calling realloc() from a C++ source file, but that might just be a > matter of taste.
But new will throw an exception if it fails, right? Presumably under the same conditions as malloc/realloc returning NULL (i.e., being out of address space). _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
