On Wednesday, May 06, 2015 03:35:27 PM Juha-Pekka Heikkila wrote:
> rzalloc_size() call ralloc_size() to allocate memory. ralloc_size()
> use calloc to get memory thus zeroing in rzalloc_size is not
> necessary.
>
> Signed-off-by: Juha-Pekka Heikkila <juhapekka.heikk...@gmail.com>
> ---
> src/util/ralloc.c | 2 --
> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/util/ralloc.c b/src/util/ralloc.c
> index 01719c8..09f5fcd 100644
> --- a/src/util/ralloc.c
> +++ b/src/util/ralloc.c
> @@ -132,8 +132,6 @@ void *
> rzalloc_size(const void *ctx, size_t size)
> {
> void *ptr = ralloc_size(ctx, size);
> - if (likely(ptr != NULL))
> - memset(ptr, 0, size);
> return ptr;
> }
>
> Wow, I have no idea why I did that. This is certainly counter-intuitive. rzalloc() is supposed to guarantee zeroed memory. ralloc() is not, but it looks like it always has for some reason. I'm somewhat inclined to change ralloc_size() to use malloc instead of calloc. I wonder how many things would break :)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
