http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
Bug 19476 depends on bug 20318, which changed state.
Bug 20318 Summary: RFE: add attribute to specify that a function never returns
NULL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20318
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
--- Comment #18 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: glisse
Date: Thu Oct 3 23:48:18 2013
New Revision: 203194
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203194root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-10-04 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
--- Comment #17 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: glisse
Date: Thu Oct 3 16:13:54 2013
New Revision: 203163
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203163root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-10-03 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
--- Comment #15 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I posted a patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00676.html
However, note that it only optimizes the testcase from this PR if we add
#include new at the beginning,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
--- Comment #16 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #15)
However, note that it only optimizes the testcase from this PR if we add
#include new at the beginning, otherwise the implicit declaration
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Without adding an attribute, can we identify those operator new that may not
return 0? Is DECL_IS_OPERATOR_NEW !TREE_NOTHROW good enough, or completely
wrong? I am basing this on:
If
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org|
--- Comment #12 from ian at airs dot com 2008-04-10 23:33 ---
Note that bug 35878, which was closed as a duplicate of this one, was a case of
placement new. For placement new the check for a NULL pointer is particularly
useless, as the language standard says that placement new is
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-08 21:40
---
*** Bug 35878 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-09 18:33
---
No longer working on this, I am too busy working on the gfortran front-end.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-12 20:05 ---
This is an easy extension on top of PR 20318. Mine.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from sabre at nondot dot org 2005-11-13 01:24 ---
Is this safe? People can define their own operator new's, some of which may
return null...
-Chris
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-13 02:10 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Is this safe? People can define their own operator new's, some of which may
return null...
Yes because the normal operator new guarante not to return NULL by the C++
standard. And if it
--- Comment #7 from sabre at nondot dot org 2005-11-13 02:13 ---
Yes because the normal operator new guarante not to return NULL by the C++
standard.
Sure.
And if it returns a NULL that is undefined behavior, it should be
throwing an exception when memory could not be allocated
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-13 02:24 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
From 3.7.3/3:
Any allocation and/or deallocation functions defined in a C++ program shall
conform to the sematics specified in 3.7.3.1 and 3.7.3.2.
---
--
--- Comment #9 from sabre at nondot dot org 2005-11-13 02:51 ---
yup, you're right. Great!
-Chris
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-20
06:29 ---
Diego raised some questions about this around the same time I filed it so
confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-17
08:37 ---
Is this a regression?
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-17
15:30 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Is this a regression?
Not that I know of.
--
What|Removed |Added
21 matches
Mail list logo
