This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: valgrind confused by std::allocator calls to operator new(0)
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 10:53:31AM +0100, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Michael Veksler wrote:
> >Is it possible/reasonable to change new_allocator::allocate such that
> >it returns NULL when __n ==0 ? Should I open a PR against libstdc++?
> I agree that calling new(0) is dumb and we should simply standardize on
> the behavior of pool and mt: it's just a matter of adding a conditional
> to new_allocator, seems safe for 3.4.4 too. Please file a PR, thanks.
This may be out of context... The standard defines that allocators
(and operator new) may be asked for zero bytes. They must return an
address different from any other address that they have returned that
haven't since been released. (That disallows returning 0.) Most
implementations treat a call to operator new(0) identically to operator
I agree that there's no reason for the library ever to call it with a