From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NHg19-00064R-RQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:00:56 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NHg13-000623-ES
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:00:53 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=39395 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NHg12-00061e-HB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:00:48 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:20336)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1NHg12-0004fQ-DF
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:00:48 -0500
Message-ID: <4B1D2696.5080003@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:00:22 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Permit zero-sized qemu_malloc() & friends
References: <m3skbwxgkp.fsf@crossbow.pond.sub.org>
	<4B1D2462.3070000@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <4B1D2462.3070000@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
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: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 12/07/2009 05:50 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
> While it's always fun to argue about standards interpretation, I 
> wanted to capture some action items from the discussion that I think 
> there is agreement about.  Since I want to make changes for 0.12, I 
> think it would be best to try and settle these now so we can do this 
> before -rc2.
>
> For 0.12.0-rc2:
>
> I will send out a patch tonight or tomorrow changing qemu_malloc() to 
> return malloc(1) when size=0 only for production builds (via 
> --enable-zero-mallocs).  Development trees will maintain their current 
> behavior.
>

Since active development is ceasing on 0.12, I'd suggest not having 
separate behaviour for devel and production.  Do we want patches for 
n==0 array allocations at this time?

I'd really like to see Markus' patch applied.

> For 0.13:
>
> Someone (Marcus?) will introduce four new allocation functions.
>
> type *qemu_new(type, n_types);
> type *qemu_new0(type, n_types);
>
> type *qemu_renew(type, mem, n_types);
> type *qemu_renew0(type, mem, n_types);
>

I'd like to see separate functions for arrays and single objects, to 
avoid ", 1)" everywhere.

   qemu_new()
   qemu_new0()

   qemu_new_array()
   qemu_new_array0()
   qemu_renew_array()
   qemu_renew_array0()

In addition, Markus' patch should be applied to master to avoid 
regressions while the code is converted.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function