Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 00:07:39 -0800 From: Jason Evans <jasone@FreeBSD.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Proposed addition of malloc_size_np() Message-ID: <4424FA4B.5080201@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <62732.1143272796@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <62732.1143272796@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <44247DF1.8000002@FreeBSD.org>, Jason Evans writes: > >>=== Proposal === >>Add malloc_size_np() to libc, and provide the prototype in malloc_np.h: >> >> size_t >> malloc_size_np(const void *ptr); > > > I'm for the concept, but wonder if it would be smarter to make it > > void * > malloc_np(size_t, size_t *) > > so we can do it in one go ? I can see how this would be useful, but I don't think it completely replaces the use case for malloc_size_np(), which can be useful at other times than allocation/deallocation (ex: assertions that detect buffer overflow). Also, if we add malloc_np(), for completeness we should also provide: void * calloc_np(size_t size, size_t *size_ceil); void * realloc_np(void *ptr, size_t size, size_t *size_ceil); (Let's ignore posix_memalign() here.) size_t free_np(void *ptr); Given that these functions are essentially the (somewhat higher performance) fusion of two function calls, it isn't clear to me whether it's worth adding several extra functions. Personally, I would use them if they were available, but I'm not sure if they would be broadly useful. Thoughts? Thanks, Jason
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4424FA4B.5080201>