On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 17:22 +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Pavel Roskin<pro...@gnu.org> wrote: > > Even though it's a new function added to the core, its use makes > > core.img smaller. And it makes modules smaller too. > I like the idea even if function name is inexplicit. Do you have a > better alterative?
I was thinking about it. Here are some ideas: grub_malloc0 - good that "0" is there, bad that malloc0 is not a traditional libc name. It's easy to scan sources for both grub_malloc and grub_malloc0 grub_calloc - we would need two arguments (element size and element number) to be compatible with libc. We could make it a macro expandable to grub_malloc0 to optimize out multiplication. Still, having two arguments introduces unnecessary choice to the caller. grub_calloc with one argument - this break the tradition or replacing libc functions with equivalents. grub_zalloc - similar to Linux kzalloc and kmalloc. By zalloc is not a libc function. grub_malloc_cleared, grub_malloc_zero - too long and just as nonstandard as grub_zalloc. grub_0malloc - even more weird than grub_malloc0, and it's harder to scan for both. After having written that, I actually tend to prefer grub_zalloc(). -- Regards, Pavel Roskin _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
