On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 10:07:32AM +0800, Michael Mikonos wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 02:58:47PM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 08:32:04PM +0800, Michael Mikonos wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I noticed that flex is too trusting and assumes
> > > calloc/malloc will always succeed. Hopefully I
> > > caught all of them.
> > > I tried to follow the existing idiom of
> > > calling flexerror() and passing strings via
> > > the _() macro. OK?
> >
> > Does upstream have anything like this? You could consider using the
> > xmalloc idiom (i.e. have separate functions that do the checks).
>
> Upstream has the _() macro and also calls flexerror() on allocation
> failure. To me it is also nicer adding an xmalloc/xcalloc.
> That would be a bigger patch though as the calls currently
> checking malloc/calloc return value get modified too.
>
> - Michael
>
I'd say go for the x* solution,
-Otto
