On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 01:43:52PM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote: > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 05:51:37PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 08:29:33PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > After updating the virBuffer APIs to protect against improper usage I have > > > been thinking about how we might provider safer memory allocation APIs > > > with protection against common usage errors and compile time validation of > > > checks for failure. > > > > Here is an updated version which removes the bogus VIR_REALLOC function > > and illustrates use in capabilities.c which is a more interesting test > > case than hash.c > > Clearly that makes for cleaner code, and more importantly safer. > We should do this, possibly one module at a time, then we can try to > add new syntax-check rules forbidding malloc/realloc. Also potentially > we could hook up memory checks at runtime with the macro, if we need > to in the future. > +1 for applying this now, then we can fix one module at a time later. > we don't need to grow a gigantic patch. Ok I applied this. I'll update some more of the driver code over the course of the week. Dan. -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, Boston -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list