------- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-05 14:23 ------- (In reply to comment #3) > Subject: Re: Weird temporary array allocation > > On Fri, 5 Feb 2010, pault at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > > > ------- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-05 05:36 > > ------- > > (In reply to comment #1) > > > > > Why there is a negative check? Well, I do not know. I also can speculate > > > about > > > a poor man's overflow check, which sometimes indeed works, but often > > > fails. > > > > I suspect that you are being generous and that this is rather a sin of > > omission > > rather than commission. > > > > > > > Paul, what do you think? > > > > I think that your arguments are correct. > > > > > > > > (PS: POSIX Allows "ptr = malloc(0); free(ptr)", where "malloc(0)" returns > > > either NULL or a unique pointer.) > > > > Indeed. > > Btw, should there be the same error reporting or if (allocated) behavior > on Frontend-generated temporaries? I see this from the temporaries > generated by the scalarizer and the introduced control-flow makes it > very hard to remove unnecessary temporaries in the middle-end later.
Thus, basically adding an argument to gfc_call_malloc () specifying whether we want to do checking at all and shortcut it from at least gfc_trans_allocate_array_storage (). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42958
