public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "vultkayn at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug analyzer/94355] analyzer support for C++ new expression
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2023 20:01:47 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-94355-4-HwLiYDDyb5@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-94355-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94355

--- Comment #15 from Benjamin Priour <vultkayn at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14)
> [...snip...]
> 
> See the -fcheck-new option:
> 
>   Check that the pointer returned by "operator new" is non-null before
> attempting to modify the storage allocated.  This check is normally
> unnecessary because the C++ standard specifies that "operator new" only
> returns 0 if it is declared "throw()", in which case the compiler always
> checks the return value even without this option.  In all other cases, when
> "operator new" has a non-empty exception specification, memory exhaustion is
> signalled by throwing "std::bad_alloc".  See also new (nothrow).


Should we use the above flag's value to also optionally disable the analyzer
warnings on operator new possibly returning NULL?

Or maybe there could be an additional flag -fanalyzer-new-returns-null, turned
'on' by default.

Having such capability would be useful to run the analyzer against itself, as
GCC is built without exceptions (thus every operator new possibly returns
NULL).

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-06-29 20:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-03-27 11:36 [Bug analyzer/94355] New: " vanyacpp at gmail dot com
2020-03-27 11:59 ` [Bug analyzer/94355] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-09 21:24 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-09 21:44 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-09 21:50 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-26  1:35 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-12  7:46 ` vanyacpp at gmail dot com
2021-04-12  8:04 ` vanyacpp at gmail dot com
2021-07-22 21:14 ` navarre.gcc.bugs at gmail dot com
2021-07-22 21:35 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-05  9:21 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-05  9:28 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-05  9:59 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-05 16:44 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-05 21:31 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-06-29 20:01 ` vultkayn at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2023-09-01 20:06 ` [Bug analyzer/94355] analyzer " cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-94355-4-HwLiYDDyb5@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).