From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NH3kN-0006Jh-6W
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 18:09:03 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NH3kL-0006JB-7Z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 18:09:01 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58636 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NH3kL-0006J8-4M
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 18:09:01 -0500
Received: from bhuna.collabora.co.uk ([93.93.128.226]:52179)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <ian.molton@collabora.co.uk>) id 1NH3kK-0001oD-AN
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 18:09:00 -0500
Message-ID: <4B1AE7E3.9000905@collabora.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 23:08:19 +0000
From: Ian Molton <ian.molton@collabora.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Permit zero-sized qemu_malloc() & friends
References: <m3skbwxgkp.fsf@crossbow.pond.sub.org>	<4B193DA5.6040507@codemonkey.ws>	<4B1A9359.8080305@redhat.com>	<f43fc5580912050928r47dbf4f4l721047ca9f6654fd@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1A9BF4.2090909@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B1A9BF4.2090909@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Avi Kivity wrote:

> Only if you allocate using POSIX malloc().  If you allocate using a
> function that is defined to return a valid pointer for zero length
> allocations, you're happy.

Wouldnt it be better to, rather than use a qemu_malloc() that is utterly
counterintuitive in that it has no way to report failure, and behaves in
ways people dont expect, to use normal malloc() and never pass it 0 ?

Seriously, who does that anyway? why call malloc when you dont want the
space? so you can use realloc? 99.99% of the time realloc() is the Wrong
Solution(tm).

stick to what people know, and LART them for misuse of it if necessary.

(Just my 2p)

-Ian