[LLVMdev] optimization assumes malloc return is non-null

[David A. Greene]

On Wednesday 30 April 2008 17:26, David Vandevoorde wrote:

> >> ...malloc() is not specified to access a volatile
> >> object, modify an object, or modifying a file (directly or
> >> indirectly); i.e., it has no side effect from the language point of
> >> view.
> >
> > Daveed:
> >
> > Good to know that I was looking at the correct section. I do not agree
> > that your interpretation follows the as-if rule, because I do not
> > agree
> > with your interpretation of the C library specification of malloc().
>
> Before I go on, let me state that this is not a contentious issue
> among WG14: There is no doubt that the intent of the standard is that
> this be a valid optimization.

Maybe I missed something, but aren't we all talking about the wrong thing 
here?  It seems to me that this isn't about side effects, it's about the 
return value of malloc.  Why can LLVM assume malloc will always return 
non-zero?

                                                -Dave