Is this correct? I've just been surprised to see that the following code produces "NULL returned", and not "bad_alloc"

    {
        try
        {
            char    *pch    =   new char[2000000000];

            if(NULL == pch)
            {
                fprintf(stderr, "NULL returned\n");
            }
        }
        catch(std::bad_alloc &)
        {
            fprintf(stderr, "bad_alloc\n");
        }
        catch(std::exception &x)
        {
            fprintf(stderr, "exception: %s\n", x.what());
        }
        catch(...)
        {
            fprintf(stderr, "exception of unknown type\n");
        }
    }


What gives?!

Matthew

"Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message news:daad5l$2t23$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Is this correct? I've just been surprised to see that the following code produces "NULL returned", and not "bad_alloc"

It still returns NULL, that's correct. It's that way to support older code, such as MFC. I know it'll eventually have to be fixed.

I've found a workaround, in that I've emulated the somewhat scary tactic of DMC++'s STLport that throws bad_alloc from std::allocator even though operator new() does not.

Still, it will have to be fixed. ;)

"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:daaqqi$dpa$2@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message news:daad5l$2t23$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Is this correct? I've just been surprised to see that the
>> following
>> code produces "NULL returned", and not "bad_alloc"
>
> It still returns NULL, that's correct. It's that way to support
> older code,
> such as MFC. I know it'll eventually have to be fixed.
>
>