Code that checks for NULL as an error condition is, IMHO, incorrect (unless, of
course, the code never expects malloc to be called with a zero argument).
Correct code would look like:
p = malloc(n);
if((p == NULL) ^ (n == 0))
{
/* error */
}
Also, allocating 1-byte chunks could potentially fragment memory and slow down
the process.
Currently, most (if not all) calls to free() check to see if the argument is
NULL anyway (ie if(p != NULL) free(p)). The only thing that's gained by not
wrapping free() is one less function call for each free(). If you're worried
about that extra function call, the wrapper could be made a macro.
Noel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 05/02/2000 04:50:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: question (preference?) about xmalloc
Noel L Yap writes:
>
> I was looking at that, too. I tend to feel that 0-byte allocations should be
> allowed (returning NULL) and, if systems' frees don't handle NULL properly,
> there should be an xfree() that'll do so.
The problem with that is that code that calls malloc almost always
assumes that a NULL return means there's no more memory available and
thus errors out. Interpreting 0-byte requests as 1-byte requests
ensures that you don't get a NULL return unless you really are out of
memory and, as an extra added attraction, you don't have to wrap free.
-Larry Jones
It's not denial. I'm just very selective about the reality I accept.
-- Calvin
This communication is for informational purposes only. It is not intended as
an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument
or as an official confirmation of any transaction, unless specifically agreed
otherwise. All market prices, data and other information are not warranted as
to completeness or accuracy and is subject to change without notice. Any
comments or statements made herein do not necessarily reflect those of
J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated, its subsidiaries and affiliates.
