Hi all, Well, this is really interesting.
If we use this, i think it is necessary to use even another name and avoid anything that points to the name "malloc" to avoid any future discussions about this topic. Perhaps we should use something like: void *allocate_or_exit(size); This would make it perfectly clear what happening and i have no problem with that. It is fail safe. Best Regards, Carsten Am 17.12.2009 00:34, schrieb Austin, Alex: > Actually, probably not a bad idea for a long-term fix. AFAIK, Posix > OSes will inform you of malloc failures with SIGKILL rather than NULL. > The article on gmane.comp.audio.jackit had some very good discussion > on this point, so emulating that functionality under Windows is probably > a decent way to go. > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.audio.jackit/19998 > > On Wednesday 16 December 2009, David Brownell wrote: >> >> On Wednesday 16 December 2009, Igor Skochinsky wrote: >>> Actually, I think a common emalloc() function that (in the unlikely >>> event of malloc failure) prints an error message and exits the app is >>> a better choice than sticking checks everywhere. >> >> Not a bad idea for a near-term fix... >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openocd-development mailing list >> Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de >> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development > _______________________________________________ > Openocd-development mailing list > Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
