Please folks, don't start yet another endless diverging thread about how *thing* is ugly and all.
There's no need to write so much about what g_strdup() is, seriously, were you born yesterday? Keep the threads about what they are initially, start your own apart if you want to diverge from it. There's enough pollution on the list. > On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:17:43 +0200 > Laslo Hunhold <d...@frign.de> wrote: > > > As a small fun part, there's also a function g_malloc0_n() just > > below g_malloc_n() which does exactly the same (the code is > > identical). I think they created g_malloc0_n() to be a "safe" > > interface while keeping g_malloc_n() for "performance" reasons, but > > then later on noticed that it might be smart to do the check > > anyway, having two identical functions and bloating the API > > unnecessarily. > > Sorry, I need to correct myself here. I misread the code to be honest, > and g_malloc0_n() is in fact like a "calloc". I hope this can be > forgiven given the nature of the code. > The other points still stand though of course. :) > > With best regards > > Laslo >
