xmalloc_type

Alex Kiernan alexk at demon.net
Wed Aug 14 05:25:52 UTC 2002


Russ Allbery <rra at stanford.edu> writes:

> Alex Kiernan <alexk at demon.net> writes:
> > Russ Allbery <rra at stanford.edu> writes:
> 
> >> Accordingly, I'd like to introduce xmalloc_type into the source tree
> >> that has the same API as NEW does now, but otherwise looks like the
> >> xmalloc family of macros.  Then I can retire all of the old macros
> 
> >> Does this sound like a good idea to everyone?  Opinions?
> 
> > Personally I dislike all of those macros, but I guess something
> > xmalloc_type has some precedent (calloc).
> 
> > For me I'd delete the lot as I think they just obfuscate, but ultimately
> > I'd not argue too hard against xmalloc_type.
> 
> By "all those macros" you mean NEW, COPY, and DISPOSE (not the xmalloc
> ones), right?
> 

Yup, NEW, COPY, and DISPOSE.

> Yeah, I'm kind of in that camp myself, but I also can't argue with the
> fact that it's easier to mess up an xmalloc call than it would be to mess
> up a call to xmalloc_type (since with the latter you have to really think
> about what you're allocating and you get a type mismatch if you get it
> wrong).
> 

I guess I really just don't like macros much :(

-- 
Alex Kiernan, Principal Engineer, Development, THUS plc


More information about the inn-workers mailing list