Hal Murray <hmur...@megapathdsl.net>:
>
> > The mistake I made was putting the new field first in the structure. This
> > caused it to be randomly trashed by type-punning dynamic-allocation code
> > that was expecting a link field there.
>
> I don't understand yet. Why are we type punning there? If it's a hack to
> avoid malloc, why is the caller assuming anything about the state of the new
> storage?
>
> Should we make a cleanup pass at all avoid-malloc hacks?
Oh dear Goddess, not *now*. That would be extremely risky.
I think it's not hack to avoid malloc, but rather a hack to allow the config
tree to consist of variable-sized structure nodes that are all chain-linked in
such a way that they can be freed after config parsing with a simple
traverse of that list.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
Please consider contributing to my Patreon page at https://www.patreon.com/esr
so I can keep the invisible wheels of the Internet turning. Give generously -
the civilization you save might be your own.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
