https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88576
Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comment #8 from Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com> ---
(In reply to Aurelien Jarno from comment #7)
> (In reply to Zack Weinberg from comment #5)
> > The C standard doesn't say malloc _will_ set errno on failure, but it also
>
> Well at least POSIX says:
> Otherwise, it shall return a null pointer and set errno to indicate the
> error.
Yeah, I wasn't denying that, I was responding to Andrew taking the attitude
that this was fine because ISO C proper _didn't_ say that.
I dug into the code a little and it looks like this was an intentional re-use
of -fno-math-errno to also mean "and neither will malloc", in the patch for PR
42944. I think that's wrong, but perhaps Richard Biener would like to argue
otherwise...
