Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Permit zero-sized qemu_malloc() & friends

[Glauber Costa]

> So the only correct way would be to write:
>
> array = malloc(size);
> if (array == NULL && size != 0) {
>   return -ENOMEM;
> }
>

Of course we can differentiate. A failed malloc will abort, a successful one
will not.

> If you were writing portable code.  But that's not what people write.  You
> can argue that qemu_malloc() can have any semantics we want and while that's
> true, it doesn't change my above statement.  I think the main argument for
> this behavior in qemu is that people are used to using this idiom with
> malloc() but it's a non-portable practice.
>
> If qemu_malloc() didn't carry the name "malloc()" then semantics with size=0
> would be a different discussion.  But so far, all qemu_* functions tend to
> behave almost exactly like their C counterparts.  Relying on the result of
> size=0 with malloc() is broken.

We can change qemu_malloc to qemu_alloc_memory(), or whatever.
But from the moment we do things like abort on failing, we are already
deviating from its C counterpart.

-- 
Glauber  Costa.
"Free as in Freedom"
http://glommer.net

"The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."