------- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-02-05 09:32 ------- Subject: Re: Weird temporary array allocation
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010, pault at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > ------- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-05 05:36 ------- > (In reply to comment #1) > > > Why there is a negative check? Well, I do not know. I also can speculate > > about > > a poor man's overflow check, which sometimes indeed works, but often fails. > > I suspect that you are being generous and that this is rather a sin of > omission > rather than commission. > > > > Paul, what do you think? > > I think that your arguments are correct. > > > > > (PS: POSIX Allows "ptr = malloc(0); free(ptr)", where "malloc(0)" returns > > either NULL or a unique pointer.) > > Indeed. Btw, should there be the same error reporting or if (allocated) behavior on Frontend-generated temporaries? I see this from the temporaries generated by the scalarizer and the introduced control-flow makes it very hard to remove unnecessary temporaries in the middle-end later. Thx, Richard. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42958
