[LLVMdev] optimization assumes malloc return is non-null
sabre at nondot.org
Mon Jun 23 09:08:51 PDT 2008
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>> I was confused about this too. LLVM actually *can* assume malloc success
>> in this case, using any of several arguments that came up in my exchange
>> with Daveed.
> Under this reasoning, it can equally assume malloc *failure*.
You're right, but I don't see what your point is. What are you trying to
More information about the llvm-dev