Am 25.07.2011 12:06, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Avi Kivity <a...@redhat.com> wrote: >> qemu_malloc() is type-unsafe as it returns a void pointer. Introduce >> QEMU_NEW() (and QEMU_NEWZ()), which return the correct type. >> >> Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity <a...@redhat.com> >> --- >> >> This is part of my memory API patchset, but doesn't really belong there. >> >> qemu-common.h | 3 +++ >> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/qemu-common.h b/qemu-common.h >> index ba55719..66effa3 100644 >> --- a/qemu-common.h >> +++ b/qemu-common.h >> @@ -186,6 +186,9 @@ void qemu_free(void *ptr); >> char *qemu_strdup(const char *str); >> char *qemu_strndup(const char *str, size_t size); >> >> +#define QEMU_NEW(type) ((type *)(qemu_malloc(sizeof(type)))) >> +#define QEMU_NEWZ(type) ((type *)(qemu_mallocz(sizeof(type)))) > > Does this mean we need to duplicate the type name for each allocation? > > struct foo *f; > > ... > f = qemu_malloc(sizeof(*f)); > > Becomes: > > struct foo *f; > > ... > f = QEMU_NEW(struct foo);
Maybe we should allow this and make it the usual pattern: f = qemu_new(typeof(*f)); It's gcc specific, but we already don't care about portability to other compilers in more places. On the other hand, how many bugs did we have recently that were caused by a wrong sizeof for qemu_malloc? As far as I can say, there's no real reason to do it. I think it's the same kind of discussion as with forbidding qemu_malloc(0) (except that this time it just won't improve things much instead of being really stupid). Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
