On 25.07.2011, at 11:52, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 07/25/2011 12:48 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 25 July 2011 10:32, Alexander Graf<agraf@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On 25.07.2011, at 10:51, Avi Kivity wrote: >> >> qemu_malloc() is type-unsafe as it returns a void pointer. Introduce >> >> QEMU_NEW() (and QEMU_NEWZ()), which return the correct type. >> > >> > What does this buy you over >> > >> > type *x = qemu_malloc(sizeof(type)); >> > >> > ? I find the non-C++ version easier to read even. >> >> Yeah, while we're writing in C we should just stick to the C-like >> APIs, it's less confusing IMHO than wrapping it up in something else. > > That argument can be used to block any change. You'll get used to it in time. The question is, is the new interface better or not. I agree that it keeps you from accidently malloc'ing a struct of pointer size. But couldn't we also just add this to checkpatch.pl? I sympathize with Peter on the rationale that keeping interfaces aligned with how C APIs usually look like helps making the code more readable. Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
