Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> writes: > Am 25.07.2011 12:06, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi: >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Avi Kivity <a...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> qemu_malloc() is type-unsafe as it returns a void pointer. Introduce >>> QEMU_NEW() (and QEMU_NEWZ()), which return the correct type. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity <a...@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> >>> This is part of my memory API patchset, but doesn't really belong there. >>> >>> qemu-common.h | 3 +++ >>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/qemu-common.h b/qemu-common.h >>> index ba55719..66effa3 100644 >>> --- a/qemu-common.h >>> +++ b/qemu-common.h >>> @@ -186,6 +186,9 @@ void qemu_free(void *ptr); >>> char *qemu_strdup(const char *str); >>> char *qemu_strndup(const char *str, size_t size); >>> >>> +#define QEMU_NEW(type) ((type *)(qemu_malloc(sizeof(type)))) >>> +#define QEMU_NEWZ(type) ((type *)(qemu_mallocz(sizeof(type)))) >> >> Does this mean we need to duplicate the type name for each allocation? >> >> struct foo *f; >> >> ... >> f = qemu_malloc(sizeof(*f)); >> >> Becomes: >> >> struct foo *f; >> >> ... >> f = QEMU_NEW(struct foo); > > Maybe we should allow this and make it the usual pattern: > > f = qemu_new(typeof(*f)); > > It's gcc specific, but we already don't care about portability to other > compilers in more places. > > On the other hand, how many bugs did we have recently that were caused > by a wrong sizeof for qemu_malloc? As far as I can say, there's no real > reason to do it. I think it's the same kind of discussion as with > forbidding qemu_malloc(0) (except that this time it just won't improve > things much instead of being really stupid).
Side-stepping the stupid "OMG malloc(0) is weird, therefore we must make qemu_malloc(0) differently weird" controversy would be useful all by itself.
