https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94355
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to William Navarre from comment #8) > It seems that `operator new` is generally not supposed to return NULL -- > std::bad_alloc() is supposed to be thrown instead. If an operator new overload is declared noexcept, then it can return null on failure. If it is not noexcept then it throws bad_alloc (or something derived from it) and must never return null. > > I made that change on my build (see below). I think that treating new's > result as never-null is probably the correct thing to do most of the time, > but two considerations: > > 1) The case of allocating a zero-length array. That still can't return null. It must return a valid non-null pointer, that cannot be derefernced. > 2) The case that a project has replaced `operator new.` (See "global > replacements" at https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/new/operator_new). > > Apparently projects can replace `operator new` (see "global replacements" at > https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/new/operator_new). It's not clear Exactly the same rules apply. If the operator new function is noexcept it returns null to indicate allocation failure, otherwise it must throw and cannot return null, ever.
