On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 08:47:10PM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 12:12:32AM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > > But if we *are* doing that then surely we should provide the full set of > > functions. I.e. ALLOC() and ALLOC_ARRAY(), CALLOC() and CALLOC_ARRAY(), > > and REALLOC() and REALLOC_ARRAY()? > > FWIW, I would be happy to see all of those (minus REALLOC(), as there is > not really any point in growing or shrinking something with a fixed > size). Same. > The biggest argument against them that I can see is that: > > struct foo *x = malloc(sizeof(*x)); > > is idiomatic C that newcomers to the project will easily understand, > and: > > struct foo *x; > ALLOC(x); > > is not. But it feels like we already crossed that bridge with > ALLOC_ARRAY(), etc. Yeah, I agree that it might be off-putting to have that convention pervade throughout the tree. On the other hand, though, we can clearly document that in CodingGuidelines, and make Coccinelle rules that indicate our preferences. And indeed, ALLOC_ARRAY() and friends is a useful test-case for gauging how something like this might go. I don't think we necessarily need to do all of that in the same set of patches (though I'm not opposed to doing so, either), but I wouldn't mind getting there in the end, one way or another. Thanks, Taylor
