Re: Fix calloc.m4 test

On 2020-05-23 I wrote: > As you can see: > > 1) clang has eliminated the calloc() and free() calls from the program. > Apparently it "knows" how to optimize matching calloc - free pairs. > > 2) It has estimated that the second call would return a non-NULL pointer, > although the add

Re: Fix calloc.m4 test

> > Does this look like a reportable bug? :-) > > Absolutely! > I've reported it at . Bruno

Re: Fix calloc.m4 test

On 5/23/20 2:53 PM, Bruno Haible wrote: > Does this look like a reportable bug? :-) Absolutely!

Re: Fix calloc.m4 test

Hi Paul, > Unfortunately Vincent Lefevre is correct that the C Standard allows calloc > (SIZE_MAX, 2) to succeed on a hypothetical machine that actually can allocate > that amount of memory. This could in theory occur on a machine that doesn't > have > a flat address space. > > A program like th

Re: Fix calloc.m4 test

On 5/23/20 11:48 AM, Bruno Haible wrote: > 2) It has estimated that the second call would return a non-NULL pointer, > although the address space does not allow this. > Reported at . But some > people claim it is not a bug. Paul, can you