Hello,
yes i know. This is a rather unusual case. It seems to me that there is a signed integer variable used for allocation (new[signed integer] and malloc (signed integer)) in the implementation of gcc/g++... why not using an unsigned integer and this error can be avoided. But this is just a thought....
Best regards
Martin
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:02:43 -0700
> Von: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@xxxxxxxxxx>
> An: "Martin Ettl" <ettl.martin@xxxxxx>
> CC: gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Betreff: Re: missing g++ warning about bad allocation
> "Martin Ettl" <ettl.martin@xxxxxx> writes:
>
> > compiling the following code with g++-4.4.0 on Ubuntu Linux (Jaunty):
> >
> >
> > int main()
> > {
> > double * d = new double[-100];
> > }
> >
> > compiles without warning. I used following compilation flags: (-W -Wall
> -Wextra -pedantic).
> >
> > Exectuting the compiled programm gives:
> >
> > ./test
> > terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::bad_alloc'
> > what(): std::bad_alloc
> > Aborted
> >
> > Is there a reason why g++ does not warn about this?
>
> I doubt there is an explicit reason that there is no warning. I expect
> that nobody has ever been moved to add a warning for such an unusual
> case. gcc also does not warn about malloc(-100).
>
> Ian
--
GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01
