On 01/11/2018 11:56 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 01/10/2018 04:20 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 01/09/2018 05:57 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>>>
>>> As Jakub pointed out for the case:
>>> void *f()
>>> {
>>> return __builtin_malloc (0);
>>> }
>>>
>>> The malloc propagation would set f() to malloc.
>>> However AFAIU, malloc(0) returns NULL (?) and the function shouldn't
>>> be marked as malloc ?
>> This seems like a pretty significant concern. Given:
>>
>>
>> return n ? 0 : __builtin_malloc (n);
>>
>> Is the function malloc-like enough to allow it to be marked?
>
> A call to malloc(0) is specified to return either NULL or
> a pointer to a distinct object of zero size. As useless as
> it is, the function above satisfies the requirement. That
> said, suggesting to mark it as such wouldn't be terribly
> helpful (a different warning pointing out that it's useless
> and so probably buggy might be).
I'm mostly concerned with making sure it is not harmful to mark. If it
were harmful to mark then the bar for marking gets much higher, possibly
to the point where the analysis really isn't worth it.
I doubt either case is worth the effort to try and detect for a warning
though.
Jeff
