I was going to say this is the same bug as STDCXX-764:
   http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-764
but after looking at it more closely I believe the compiler
is correct in this case because malloc() returns 0 when it
fails to allocate memory. The warning could be clearer about
it.

Martin

Scott Zhong wrote:
> cat /build/scottz/t2.cpp && aCC -V && aCC -c  +w  /build/scottz/t2.cpp 
> #include <cstdlib>
> 
> int main()
> {
>   static char * test = 0;
>   if (!test) {
>      test = (char *)std::malloc (12345);
>      *test = '\0';
>   }
> 
>   return 0;
> }
> aCC: HP C/aC++ B3910B A.06.16 [Nov 26 2007]
> "/build/scottz/t2.cpp", line 8, procedure main: warning #20200-D:
> Potential
>           null pointer dereference through test is detected (null
>           definition:/build/scottz/t2.cpp, line 7)
> 
> this test case shows that the warning is bogus because the pointer
> "test" is pointing to a valid location in memory after std::malloc is
> performed.
>