[LordGrey]

malloc() and friends may always return NULL. From the man page:

If successful, calloc(), malloc(), realloc(), reallocf(), valloc(), and aligned_alloc() functions return a pointer to allocated memory. If there is an error, they return a NULL pointer and set errno to ENOMEM.

In practice, I find a lot of code that does not check for NULL, which is rather distressing.

[johncolanduoni]

No non-embedded libc will actually return NULL. Very, very little practical C code actually relies only on specified behavior of the spec and will work with literally any compliant C compiler on any architecture, so I don’t find this particularly concerning.

Usefully handling allocation errors is very hard to do well, since it infects literally every error handling path in your codebase. Any error handling that calls a function that might return an indirect allocation error needs to not allocate itself. Even if you have a codepath that speculatively allocates and can fallback, the process is likely so close to ruin that some other function that allocates will fail soon.

It’s almost universally more effective (not to mention easier) to keep track of your large/variable allocations proactively, and then maintain a buffer for little “normal” allocations that should have an approximate constant bound.

[jclulow]

> No non-embedded libc will actually return NULL

This is just a Linux ecosystem thing. Other full size operating systems do memory accounting differently, and are able to correctly communicate when more memory is not available.

[jenadine]

> No non-embedded libc will actually return NULL.

malloc(-1) should always return NULL. Malloc returns NULL if the virtual address space for a given process is exhausted.

It will not return NULL when the system is out of memory (depending on the overcommit settings)

[sidewndr46]

It's been a while but while I agree the man page says that, my limited understanding was the typical libc on linux won't really return NULL under any sane scenario. Even when the memory can't be backed

[LordGrey]

I think you're right, but "typical" is the key word. Embedded systems, systems where overcommit is disabled, bumping into low ulimit -v settings, etc can all trigger an immediate failure with malloc(). Those are edge cases, to be sure, but some of them could be applied to a typical Linux system and me, as a coder, won't be aware of it.

As an aside: To me, checking malloc() for NULL is easier than checking a pointer returned by malloc on first use. That's what you're supposed to do in the presence of overcommit.

[nextaccountic]

Even with overcommit enabled, malloc may fail if there is no contiguous address space available. Not a problem in 64 bits but may occasionally happen in 32 bits

[Bjartr]

But why would you want to violate the docs on something as fundamental as malloc? Why risk relying on implementation specific quirks in the first place?