On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Pavel Roskin<pro...@gnu.org> wrote: > 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(). After having read this I agree with you > > -- > Regards, > Pavel Roskin > > > _______________________________________________ > Grub-devel mailing list > Grub-devel@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel >
-- Regards Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko Personal git repository: http://repo.or.cz/w/grub2/phcoder.git _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
