Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Francisco Jerez <curroje...@riseup.net> > wrote: >> Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Juha-Pekka Heikkila >>> <juhapekka.heikk...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> There is no error path available thus instead of giving >>>> realloc possibility to fail use new which will never >>>> return null pointer and throws bad_alloc on failure. >>> >>> The problem was that we weren't checking if realloc failed. >>> >>> Why is the solution to change from malloc/free to new/delete? >> >> The new operator is guaranteed not to return NULL by the C++ standard. >> Aside from that Juha-Pekka's code seems more idiomatic to me than >> calling realloc() from a C++ source file, but that might just be a >> matter of taste. > > But new will throw an exception if it fails, right? Presumably under > the same conditions as malloc/realloc returning NULL (i.e., being out > of address space).
Yeah, so this patch doesn't really handle the out of memory condition. According to Juha-Pekka it silences a Klocwork warning and IMHO it improves code-style slightly. But, sure, if it actually happens it's just trading one kind of failure for another.
pgp5fiZ8Celbd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
