On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:17:43 +0200 Laslo Hunhold <d...@frign.de> wrote:
> As a small fun part, there's also a function g_malloc0_n() just below > g_malloc_n() which does exactly the same (the code is identical). I > think they created g_malloc0_n() to be a "safe" interface while > keeping g_malloc_n() for "performance" reasons, but then later on > noticed that it might be smart to do the check anyway, having two > identical functions and bloating the API unnecessarily. Sorry, I need to correct myself here. I misread the code to be honest, and g_malloc0_n() is in fact like a "calloc". I hope this can be forgiven given the nature of the code. The other points still stand though of course. :) With best regards Laslo -- Laslo Hunhold <d...@frign.de>
