https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88576
Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rguenther at suse dot de --- Comment #8 from Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com> --- (In reply to Aurelien Jarno from comment #7) > (In reply to Zack Weinberg from comment #5) > > The C standard doesn't say malloc _will_ set errno on failure, but it also > > Well at least POSIX says: > Otherwise, it shall return a null pointer and set errno to indicate the > error. Yeah, I wasn't denying that, I was responding to Andrew taking the attitude that this was fine because ISO C proper _didn't_ say that. I dug into the code a little and it looks like this was an intentional re-use of -fno-math-errno to also mean "and neither will malloc", in the patch for PR 42944. I think that's wrong, but perhaps Richard Biener would like to argue otherwise...