On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 08/03/2011 08:46 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: >> >> If that's reasonable then adding the malloc attribute should be, too. >> Finally. Please. Doesn't C++0x maybe "fix" the issue we were >> discussing to death? > > Nope, as far as I can tell nobody raised it with the committee. I have now. > > I think we ought to be able to assume that a program which accesses the > allocated storage other than through the returned pointer has undefined > behavior.
Hmm, how do you define "other than the returned pointer"? Do you intend to rule out garbage collectors? Should not access as raw memory (e.g. through char* or void*) be allowed? > I think that would be enough for attribute malloc, and I don't > think that would interfere with reasonable pool allocators. I agree we ought to have a form of guarantee a la malloc attribute.
