behavior of new

[Tino]

What is the standard behavior, if any, of the following.

int *p, n = 0;
p = new int[n];

Is p guaranteed not to be NULL, because it's not clear to me why it wouldn't be...

Regards,
Ryan

 

[John Harrison]

What is the standard behavior, if any, of the following.

int *p, n = 0;
p = new int[n];

Is p guaranteed not to be NULL, because it's not clear to me why it wouldn't be...

Regards,
Ryan

Its guaranteed not to be NULL, why should it be?

john

 

[Reginald P. Smithford]

Wouldn't p==NULL if there wasn't enough memory for new to succeed? I
haven't been paying much attention to the standard recently, but I
assume this is still true. But, other than this error condition, p is
guaranteed to be a valid address (which NULL is not), and different
from any other pointers allocated with new or malloc (not just
different from other ints allocated).

Reggy

What is the standard behavior, if any, of the following.

int *p, n = 0;
p = new int[n];

Is p guaranteed not to be NULL, because it's not clear to me why it

wouldn't be...

Yes, it is guaranteed not to be NULL, and it's guaranteed to be
different from any other "int"'s address in the system.

Victor

 

[Jerry Coffin]

What is the standard behavior, if any, of the following.

int *p, n = 0;
p = new int[n];

Is p guaranteed not to be NULL, because it's not clear to me why
it wouldn't be...

Assuming new didn't throw bad_alloc, p will be a unique, non-null
pointer, but dereferencing it will give undefined results.