On Thursday, October 14, 2010, Reinhard Meyer <u-b...@emk-elektronik.de> wrote: > 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.
The failed malloc can cause the dailed driver to unload malloc'd memory and print a warning to the console. User intervention (changing environment variables to avoid the out-of-memory on reboot for example) can still be possible even though the driver failed. > > I am not talking about malloc()'s for buffers or similar where continuing > of u-boot might be possible. > Regards, Graeme _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
