David Edmondson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 04:38:00PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote: >> I interpret "wrappers", above, to mean more than just a calloc-like wrapper. >> >> A malloc (not calloc, of course) wrapper that always initializes can >> mask what would have otherwise been a used-uninitialised error, and what >> would still be a logical U.I. error. > > That seems silly. If the wrapper is defined as zero-initalising then > it cannot be an error to assume that it zero-initalises.
What seems silly? A malloc() wrapper that initializes the memory it allocates? That's the case in which errors can be masked. A function intended to be used as a malloc or realloc replacement should not initialize its memory -- at least not by default. A calloc-wrapper _must_ do that. Not the others. -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
