On Oct 11, 2013, at 7:21 AM, Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> wrote: > I just read this note in libiberty/concat.c:
> I am afraid that if I add the returns_nonnull attribute to xmalloc in > include/libiberty.h, it will break this supported use, no? Or is this comment > out-of-date? I think the comment should be updated, it is just old. Some people envisioned some weird things, and I think we can safely observe that no system makes xmalloc return 0 on low memory situations, and in-deed, that direction would be a bad direction to go in. No caller of xmalloc expects it to return 0, so, therefore, it just can't. Life goes on.
