On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Markus Armbruster wrote: > > Commit a7d27b53 made zero-sized allocations a fatal error, deviating > > from ISO C's malloc() & friends. Revert that, but take care never to > > return a null pointer, like malloc() & friends may do (it's > > implementation defined), because that's another source of bugs. > > > > While it's always fun to argue about standards interpretation, I wanted to > capture some action items from the discussion that I think there is agreement > about. Since I want to make changes for 0.12, I think it would be best to try > and settle these now so we can do this before -rc2. > > For 0.12.0-rc2: > > I will send out a patch tonight or tomorrow changing qemu_malloc() to return > malloc(1) when size=0 only for production builds (via --enable-zero-mallocs). > Development trees will maintain their current behavior. > > For 0.13: > > Someone (Marcus?) will introduce four new allocation functions. > > type *qemu_new(type, n_types); > type *qemu_new0(type, n_types); > > type *qemu_renew(type, mem, n_types); > type *qemu_renew0(type, mem, n_types); > > NB: The names are borrowed from glib. I'm not tied to them. > > Will do our best to convert old code to use these functions where ever > possible. New code will be required to use these functions unless not > possible. n_types==0 is valid. sizeof(type)==0 is valid. Both circumstances > return a unique non-NULL pointer. If memory allocation fails, execution will > abort. > > The existing qemu_malloc() will maintain it's current behavior (with the > exception of the relaxed size==0 assertion for production releases). > > Does anyone object to this moving forward?
Yeah, i object to the split production/development qemu_malloc[z]. -- mailto:av1...@comtv.ru
