Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 18:47:22 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Cc: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>, <current@FreeBSD.ORG>, <gersh@sonn.com> Subject: Re: MALLOC/FREE macro useage. Message-ID: <20010903183414.X6804-100000@alphplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20010902211606.I81307@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> [010902 20:23] wrote: > > In article <Pine.BSF.4.21.0109021653030.86878-100000@tabby.sonn.com>, > > Gersh <gersh@sonn.com> wrote: > > > sys/malloc.h says that the macro versions of MALLOC/FREE are > > > deprecated however they are used all over the place. I belive that they > > > are cluttering and dont really have a purpose. Does anybody else agree? Yes (I wrote the line that says they are deprecated). > > > If I were to make up a patch for current removing all of them would > > > anybody care enough to commit it (Or care enough to not have it commited) No. > > Please don't. It would just create a bunch of new gratuitous > > differences against the other BSDs. At least in old code. > The reason for the macro is that when the size paramter is a constant > there's an evil trick that makes selecting the malloc bucket really > cheap. That's not the reason. The size parameter is not constant since MALLOC() just calls malloc(). I wouldn't call the big conditional statement in BUCKETINDX() an evil trick. But perhaps it should be replaced by fls(). A builtin fls() could handle constants just as well. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010903183414.X6804-100000>