From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MA2ZX-000465-Nn
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 09:56:35 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MA2ZS-00044r-BK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 09:56:34 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52305 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MA2ZS-00044o-6f
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 09:56:30 -0400
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:34678)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <glommer@redhat.com>) id 1MA2ZR-0004zu-LA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 09:56:29 -0400
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:59:59 -0300
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] use qemu_malloc and friends consistently
Message-ID: <20090529135959.GA8897@poweredge.glommer>
References: <200905290758.11551.jcd@tribudubois.net>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0905291506340.3744@linmac.oyster.ru>
	<4A1FD6E2.9020006@redhat.com>
	<200905291407.26757.paul@codesourcery.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200905291407.26757.paul@codesourcery.com>
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: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, Jean-Christophe Dubois <jcd@tribudubois.net>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>

> To some extent the answer to this question depends how much you trust your 
> programmers. If you assume everyone knows the C standard well and always 
> writes perfect code then malloc(0) is a legitimate technique, though IMHO of 
> fairly limited benefit.
> 
> If you want maximize chances of catching accidental mistakes as early as 
> possible then you should have malloc(0) abort, because it probably means 
> someone forgot tho consider the empty case.
> 

If we have to start programming like this because we don't trust our programmers,
(ultimately, ourselves), then we're pretty much doomed.

If anyone is contributing code to qemu these days, chances are that his code will
get reviewed. We'll then spot those things and kick them out. That's the only 
reasonable way to get quality.