On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Juha-Pekka Heikkilä <juhapekka.heikk...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Iago, > > I know there are lot of places where there is malloc unchecked still > -- and then there is ralloc which is a story of its own. Reason why I > think checking these would be remotely useful in windows only (or > other way around, not under linux kernel) is on Windows one can get > the null pointer from malloc. On Androids I think memory over > committing has always been enabled and on Linux I suspect I belong to > the minority who like to set ulimits for memory. > > I agree checking these mostly is quite useless but there are those > corners where it may suddenly become valuable. When process is running > and everything has settled it will be weird if hit any of these checks > but any code which is run when process is starting I notice is the > place where things will fail if they fail. This is of course just my > opinion about the value of these checks but I really dislike > possibility of segfault when it is coming from a library. > > I didn't quickly notice where _mesa_error() get more heap. Stack it of > course needs but when I did stress test these _mesa_error() did still > work. Cannot promise my test was 100% correct though, I think it was > over year ago when I was playing with it.
There's no guarantee that fprintf() doesn't call malloc. In fact, glibc's does. Adding these checks is really useless. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
