From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NHgBo-0001FJ-3I for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:11:56 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NHgBj-0001Bq-5B for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:11:55 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37701 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NHgBh-0001BY-R2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:11:50 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:2075) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NHgBh-0006GE-S0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:11:50 -0500 Message-ID: <4B1D292D.4010700@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:11:25 +0200 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Permit zero-sized qemu_malloc() & friends References: <4B1D2462.3070000@codemonkey.ws> <4B1D2696.5080003@redhat.com> <4B1D27EE.7060400@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <4B1D27EE.7060400@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Kevin Wolf , Paul Brook , Markus Armbruster , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 12/07/2009 06:06 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Avi Kivity wrote: >> 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? > > Covering every qemu_malloc instance this close to the GA is too > risky. I agree that having separate behavior is less than ideal but I > think it's the only sane way forward. > I don't understand why. What's so insane about Markus' patch? Allowing size=0 for both developer and production builds? It seems like the least risky, least change approach to me. Exactly what we want for 0.12. >> I'd really like to see Markus' patch applied. > > For 0.12, that doesn't seem like a possibility. Please explain why. > >> In addition, Markus' patch should be applied to master to avoid >> regressions while the code is converted. > > Let's separate that discussion as it's an independent consideration. > I've asked for qemu-malloc-discuss@vger.kernel.org to be created for this purpose. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function