assert ( malloc...

A question for you, Anon.

If you watch at malloc() manpage you can notice that the function may return NULL in some cases (i.e. errors or 0-sized allocation). How do you face this issue?

I noticed that many programmers check the return value and manage error routines for it, while other just assert() the return value not to be NULL.

Also in C++ by the way you use the new operator without taking care about the return value (I guess it's asserted to be not NULL under the hood, is it?)

What is your opinion?

>>34
Really? I thought he was trolling. Dynamic memory allocation is very important in my opinion. It's so important that people have spent quite a lot of time working on components to handle the process so you don't have to.

Sure, but these aren't considered stable by any safety-critical standard. Without managed pointers, any sort of malloc implementation is vulnerable to fragmentation. This is why even the latest versions of Firefox grow to using many hundreds of megs of RAM over the course of several days of use. With managed pointers, you need low-level thread control or some sort of stop-the-world call to compact memory, preventing any real-time application. You also need some extreme static analysis to guarantee an upper limit on dynamic memory usage (hint: no such analysis currently exists.) And you cannot reliably estimate performance of any kind. These are not stable or safe; they are merely acceptable for consumer applications.

There is a reason that safety critical coding standards, e.g. http://spinroot.com/p10/rule3.html , forbid dynamic memory allocation after startup. You don't want your plane to crash or nuclear reactor to fail because its memory was too fragmented.