On Sunday, December 17, 2000, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
> I may have missed your point ... or maybe you are just agreeing with
> what I wrote. For this particular implementation of free, you get the
> following for `free(foo)' when foo == NULL:
>
> function call and stack overhead for free()
> lock something if we are threaded
> pointer assignment
> increment
> compare and branch
> function call and stack overhead for ifree()
> compare and branch
> unwind ifree()
> More stuff if HAVE_UTRACE
> decrement
> unlock something
> unwind free()
> FreeBSD's free() is not optimized for freeing NULL pointers. Not
> that I think it should be -- as I said, that would be silly.
The code I pasted _was_ FreeBSD's code, and it does optimize
for freeing NULL pointers. You can still check for the pointer
if you wish, before you call free().
--
+-------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Chris Costello | Backups? We doan *NEED* no |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | steenking baX%^~,VbKx NO CARRIER |
+-------------------+-------------------------------------+
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
