On 13/11/10 12:11, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday, November 12, 2010 05:55:55 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> On 10/11/10 14:36, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 06, 2010 18:13:08 Graeme Russ wrote:
>>>> I saw discussion a little while ago regarding implementing a version of
>>>> malloc that returns cleared memory - did this gain any traction?
>>>
>>> i dont think anyone posted a patch. it would make sense though to
>>> generalize the zalloc() code since some places are already doing it.
>>
>> Actually, I think we should be using calloc() more than we are
>
> if we want to define zalloc() to calloc(), then sure. but forcing people to
> use calloc() with a size=1 is silly. the API is not nearly as obvious to
> passing observers as zalloc().
Hmm, U-Boot has a zalloc in lib/gunzip.c which does not zero memory
void *zalloc(void *x, unsigned items, unsigned size)
{
void *p;
size *= items;
size = (size + ZALLOC_ALIGNMENT - 1) & ~(ZALLOC_ALIGNMENT - 1);
p = malloc (size);
return (p);
}
and mtd has kzalloc defined thus:
#define kzalloc(size, flags) calloc(size, 1)
So there is some confusion surrounding 'zalloc' anyway ;)
Regards,
Graeme
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
