Avi Kivity wrote: > It's not that it doesn't have a way to report failure, it's that it > doesn't fail. Do you prefer functions that fail and report it to > functions that don't fail?
You have a way of allocating memory that will _never_ fail? >> Seriously, who does that anyway? why call malloc when you dont want the >> space? so you can use realloc? 99.99% of the time realloc() is the Wrong >> Solution(tm). >> > Read the beginning of the thread. Basically it's for arrays, malloc(n * > sizeof(x)). well, make sure n is not 0. Its not that hard. I dont think I've *ever* had a situation where I wanted to pass 0 to malloc. >> stick to what people know, and LART them for misuse of it if necessary. > > The LART is a crash, great. No, the LART would be a 'your patch does this wrong, try this:' -Ian
