On Mon, 25 Jul 2011, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 07/25/2011 09:30 AM, Max Filippov wrote: > > > > > > > > qemu_malloc() is type-unsafe as it returns a void pointer. > > > > > > > > Introduce > > > > > > > > QEMU_NEW() (and QEMU_NEWZ()), which return the correct type. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just use g_new() and g_new0() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These bypass qemu_malloc(). Are we okay with that? > > > > > > > > > > Yes. We can just make qemu_malloc use g_malloc. > > > > > > > > It would be also possible to make g_malloc() use qemu_malloc(). That > > > > way we could keep the tracepoints which would lose their value with > > > > g_malloc() otherwise. > > > > > > Or just add tracepoints to g_malloc()... > > > > > > But yeah, the point is, we ought to unify to a standard library function > > > instead of inventing our own version of everything. > > > > What about zero-size allocations for which g_malloc would return NULL? > > Using a standard, well documented, rich interface trumps any arguments about > the semantics of zero-sized allocation. Right right.. only g_new aborts on zero.. -- mailto:av1474@xxxxxxxx -- 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
