>
> Wolfgang Denk schrieb:
> > Dear Reinhard Meyer,
> >
> > In message <4cb6a110.6080...@emk-elektronik.de> you wrote:
> >> instead of adding or having the sequence of
> >>
> >> malloc(), memset()
> >>
> >> in all places where a definitely sane initialized structure
> >> is required it would make more sense to introduce a single
> >> function doing both. (The standard "calloc()" does not suit well
> >> here.) Overall that should even slightly decrease code size.
> >
> > And why exactly does calloc() not fit?
>
> It has two parameters... Produces more code to always supply an
> extra "1"...
>
> I am game with using calloc(). That's all.
>
> But for malloc() in such driver init situations, another code saving
> function with error message would be more effective. I don't see any
> possible way of continuing u-boot when malloc() for a relatively small
> structure already fails, and a (apparently) needed driver cannot be
> initialized.
>
> I am not talking about malloc()'s for buffers or similar where
continuing
> of u-boot might be possible.
I would borrow the naming from linux and call it mallocz
Jocke
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
