Hmmm. After hitting Send, I looked up set_new_handler() in the library reference where it says "If you have not registered a new-handler function, the default behavior is for the new operator to return NULL."
Is that in conflict with the Language Reference as quoted below, or am I reading it wrong? Also non-XPLINK, FWIW. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 5:29 PM To: [email protected] Subject: What am I missing about C++ new[] failure? I have a C++ program in which I am trying to allocate an unreasonably-large character array with new[]. I know it's unreasonably large - I'm a developer testing something. It's 6.3MB -- not ridiculous, but in excess of the memory available (apparently). It appears to me that new is simply returning a NULL pointer, with no error indication. That seems inconsistent with the C++ manual which says "If you do not specify your own set_new_handler() function, new throws an exception of type std::bad_alloc." I have an exception handler that is known to work generally and it is not getting called. I do not call set_new_handler(). Am I missing something? Do others know that new generally fails as documented? z/OS V1R13. POSIX(ON). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
