| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
-fno-exceptions does not implicitly attach a nothrow specifier to every operator
new. Even in this mode, non-nothrow new must not return a null pointer. Failure
to allocate memory can be signalled by other means, or just by killing the
program. This behaviour is consistent with the compiler - even with
-fno-exceptions, the generated code never tests for null (and would segfault if
the opeator actually happened to return null).
Reviewers: jordan_rose
CC: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1528
llvm-svn: 189452
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
...but don't yet migrate over the existing plist tests. Some of these
would be trivial to migrate; others could use a bit of inspection first.
In any case, though, the new edge algorithm seems to have proven itself,
and we'd like more coverage (and more usage) of it going forwards.
llvm-svn: 183165
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 179580
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
As mentioned in the previous commit message, the use-after-free and
double-free warnings for 'delete' are worth enabling even while the
leak warnings still have false positives.
llvm-svn: 178891
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 178529
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
+ Refactoring.
llvm-svn: 178388
|
|
|
double free, and use-after-free problems of memory managed by new/delete.
llvm-svn: 177849
|
