Mikhail Gusarov schrieb: > Twas brillig at 10:07:23 19.10.2010 UTC+02 when wha...@bfs.de did gyre and > gimble: > > wh> malloc will return (void *) so there is no need to cast. > wh> i do not know xmalloc() but i see no check for OOM condition. > wh> instead of removing xmalloc() it would be more useful to follow > wh> XtMalloc() that has error handling inside. > > Sho what's the reasonable error strategy? Shut down the server? > > xmalloc is just a funny name for malloc nowadays. >
You just run out of mem. What else can you you expect ? Either you crash with segfault because you are accessing unrelated memory or you seqfault instandly because you access NULL. I prefer an errormsg telling the user what the problem is (OOM) instead let him curse about a sudden crash. I have seen xmalloc() in several unrelated projekts doing exactly this: return memory or die. (xcalloc etc. doing the same). btw: "follow XtMalloc()" does not mean call "XtMalloc()". it means return the desired block of mem or do something useful e.g. report and shutdown graceful or ..... re wh _______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
