Thanks - makes sense! Appreciate the explanation - should have looked more
closely that early in the morning before asking. Definitely a "2-cups of
coffee" question... :-)
On 7/20/07 9:15 AM, "George Bosilca" wrote:
> The problem started with the compiler complaining about using a non
> initial
The problem started with the compiler complaining about using a non
initialized variable. When I looked into the code, I just planned to
initialize it with some default value to make the compiler stop
complaining. But then I realize that all the ifs between the moment
where this buffer get
My apologies - I intended to address this solely to George and missed that
it replied to the list. Too early in the morning...
On 7/20/07 5:32 AM, "Ralph Castain" wrote:
> I guess I really don't understand this change. How is it better that I
> *always* malloc a buffer that I might never use, j
I guess I really don't understand this change. How is it better that I
*always* malloc a buffer that I might never use, just so I can *always*
release it - versus *only* malloc'ing and releasing a buffer when I know I
need it??
I don't really care, but this seems kinda wasteful and I would like to
