In particular, the existence of a malloc impl where malloc never returns 0 when running a given program implies that the compiler cannot assume that a given "malloc fails" branch is reachable.
That doing so does not satisfy the promise to the compiler through attr-const.
-
-
OK, and I imagine we agree that the consequences of that should be "ill-formed program that the compiler couldn't catch at compile time."
-
I don't agree that the compiler can choose parts of "the implementation" that are outside its control adversarially to induce such consequences, however. And I think that down that road lies madness and useless compilers.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.