> Given that malloc will cache any reasonable small allocation anyway, > we are talking about a few dozen or 100 cpu cycles for an operation > that is expected to take several orders of magnitude more.
I wouldn't be concerned about CPU time costs, no. I'm more concerned about malloc _failing_. Given what you said in another message about password hashing being a deliberate(!) memory hog, it probably doesn't matter much in practice, in most cases. But I would still dislike an API that requires it; replacing a hashing algorithm for non-"most" cases is a lot easier than replacing the API. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
