On Sat, 06 Oct 2012, Carlos R. Mafra escribió:
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 at 12:22:26 +0200, Rodolfo García Peñas wrote:
> >
> > Some functions malloc an free are used.
> > These functions should be replaced (always?) by wmalloc and wfree.
>
> Why do you think they should be replaced?
Hi Carlos,
This is the function wfree:
void wfree(void *ptr)
{
if (ptr)
#ifdef USE_BOEHM_GC
/* This should eventually be removed, once the criss-cross
* of wmalloc()d memory being free()d, malloc()d memory being
* wfree()d, various misuses of calling wfree() on objects
* allocated by libc malloc() and calling libc free() on
* objects allocated by Boehm GC (think external libraries)
* is cleaned up.
*/
if (GC_base(ptr) != 0)
GC_FREE(ptr);
else
free(ptr);
#else
free(ptr);
#endif
ptr = NULL;
}
It checks if the pointer exists, then free it and set it to NULL. IMO is better
to avoid free a NULL pointer and get a crash with double free memory error.
About wmalloc:
void *wmalloc(size_t size)
{
void *tmp;
assert(size > 0);
#ifdef USE_BOEHM_GC
tmp = GC_MALLOC(size);
#else
tmp = malloc(size);
#endif
if (tmp == NULL) {
wwarning("malloc() failed. Retrying after 2s.");
sleep(2);
#ifdef USE_BOEHM_GC
tmp = GC_MALLOC(size);
#else
tmp = malloc(size);
#endif
if (tmp == NULL) {
if (Aborting) {
fputs("Really Bad Error: recursive malloc()
failure.", stderr);
exit(-1);
} else {
wfatal("virtual memory exhausted");
Aborting = 1;
wAbort(False);
}
}
}
memset(tmp, 0, size);
return tmp;
}
Is better because:
1. If memory is not available, sleep and retry -> No crash.
2. If no memory is available at all, then do a "order" exit -> No crash.
3. Set the memory to "0". It is interesting for differet compilers (sometimes
set the memory to 0, sometimes no). -> Memory always set to 0, less errors, no
more memory initialization.
4. You can do "wwin = wmalloc(sizeof(wwin))" instead "wwin = (struct wwin*)
malloc(wwin)"
Is my oppinion.
kix
--
||// //\\// Rodolfo "kix" Garcia
||\\// //\\ http://www.kix.es/
--
To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
