Avi Kivity wrote: > On 12/06/2009 01:25 AM, Ian Molton wrote: >> Avi Kivity wrote: >> >> >>> It's not that it doesn't have a way to report failure, it's that it >>> doesn't fail. Do you prefer functions that fail and report it to >>> functions that don't fail? >>> >> You have a way of allocating memory that will _never_ fail? > > Sort of.
'sort of' never ? > Did you look at the code? Yes. Its hardly infallible. >> well, make sure n is not 0. Its not that hard. I dont think I've *ever* >> had a situation where I wanted to pass 0 to malloc. > > There are multiple such cases in the code. > >>>> stick to what people know, and LART them for misuse of it if necessary. >>>> >>> The LART is a crash, great. >>> >> No, the LART would be a 'your patch does this wrong, try this:' > > What about existing usage? Will you audit all the existing calls? mark qemu_malloc as deprecated. don't include new patches that use it. Plenty of time to fix the broken uses... -Ian
