This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH v1.1] Expand MALLOC_COPY and MALLOC_ZERO to memcpy/memset.
- From: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>
- To: OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:59:49 +0530
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v1.1] Expand MALLOC_COPY and MALLOC_ZERO to memcpy/memset.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20131209183940 dot GB4601 at domone dot podge> <20131209190210 dot GA4208 at domone dot podge> <20131210023513 dot GC5048 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com>
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 08:05:13AM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 08:02:10PM +0100, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 07:39:40PM +0100, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Continuing cleaning malloc we also expand MALLOC_COPY and MALLOC_ZERO
> > > to their bodies.
> > >
> > After running check expansion in hook.c is also needed.
> > * malloc/malloc.c (MALLOC_COPY, MALLOC_ZERO): Delete.
> > (__malloc_assert, __libc_realloc, __libc_calloc,
> > _int_realloc): Expand MALLOC_COPY and MALLOC_ZERO to memcpy and
> > memset.
> > * malloc/hooks.c: Likewise.
> * malloc/hooks.c (realloc_check): Likewise.
> Otherwise the change looks OK.
On second thoughts, I vaguely remember an old thread that talked about
maintaining compatibility with the old code being the reason why we
keep everything about the malloc code the way it is, including the
formatting. I believe that we may have diverged from the original
code enough that we don't have any incentive to keep this
compatibility, but I'm going to defer to the senior folks (Roland,
Andreas', Carlos, Joseph, etc.) to take the final call on this.
Same goes for the INTERNAL_SIZE_T patch you had posted - something
about that patch reminded me of the discussion.