|
From: | Avi Kivity |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Permit zero-sized qemu_malloc() & friends |
Date: | Sun, 06 Dec 2009 01:11:54 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091203 Fedora/3.0-3.13.rc2.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0 |
On 12/06/2009 01:08 AM, Ian Molton wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:Only if you allocate using POSIX malloc(). If you allocate using a function that is defined to return a valid pointer for zero length allocations, you're happy.Wouldnt it be better to, rather than use a qemu_malloc() that is utterly counterintuitive in that it has no way to report failure, and behaves in ways people dont expect, to use normal malloc() and never pass it 0 ?
It's not that it doesn't have a way to report failure, it's that it doesn't fail. Do you prefer functions that fail and report it to functions that don't fail?
Seriously, who does that anyway? why call malloc when you dont want the space? so you can use realloc? 99.99% of the time realloc() is the Wrong Solution(tm).
Read the beginning of the thread. Basically it's for arrays, malloc(n * sizeof(x)).
stick to what people know, and LART them for misuse of it if necessary.
The LART is a crash, great. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |