On Mon, 5 May 2014, Jean-Philippe Ouellet wrote:
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 11:12:00AM +1000, Joel Sing wrote:
- i = 0;
if (arg-count == 0) {
arg-count = 20;
- arg-data = (char **)malloc(sizeof(char *) * arg-count);
+ arg-data = calloc(arg-count,
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 07:31:34PM +1000, Joel Sing wrote:
This one is calloc, not reallocarray, so unless I'm seriously missing
something obvious here, it is indeed zero'd, no?
Run the following before and after your change:
Ah, yep. Can't believe I missed that (along with all the other
On 05/06/14 00:10, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Jean-Philippe Ouellet
jean-phili...@ouellet.biz wrote:
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 11:30:40PM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
NULL theoretically could be != 0
Umm... short of something like:
#undef NULL
#define NULL
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Alexander Hall alexan...@beard.se wrote:
I believe a similar situation could appear with not explicitly initialized
global or static declarations, e.g. in
sbin/fsirand/fsirand.c:
fsirand(char *device)
{
...
static char *inodebuf;
This is
Matthew Dempsky matt...@dempsky.org writes:
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Alexander Hall alexan...@beard.se wrote:
I believe a similar situation could appear with not explicitly initialized
global or static declarations, e.g. in
sbin/fsirand/fsirand.c:
fsirand(char *device)
{
On May 6, 2014 1:34:01 AM CEST, Matthew Dempsky matt...@dempsky.org wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Alexander Hall alexan...@beard.se
wrote:
I believe a similar situation could appear with not explicitly
initialized
global or static declarations, e.g. in
sbin/fsirand/fsirand.c:
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 02:38:40AM -0400, Jean-Philippe Ouellet wrote:
Hello,
I've gone through lib/libssl/src/apps with the goal of making {m,c,re}alloc
uses more idiomatic, adding error checking in some places where missing,
and some minor style unification.
Feedback appreciated, better
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 12:21 AM, patrick keshishian sids...@boxsoft.comwrote:
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 02:38:40AM -0400, Jean-Philippe Ouellet wrote:
...
- if ((irow = (char **)malloc(sizeof(char *) *
- (DB_NUMBER + 1))) == NULL) {
+ irow =
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 12:29:59AM -0700, Philip Guenther wrote:
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 12:21 AM, patrick keshishian
sids...@boxsoft.comwrote:
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 02:38:40AM -0400, Jean-Philippe Ouellet wrote:
...
- if ((irow = (char **)malloc(sizeof(char *) *
-
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 12:21:04AM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote:
why not use calloc(2)?
Because it doesn't exist ?
(hint: the 2 in calloc(2) is the manual section. There is no calloc system
call, therefore you can't be right. See guenther(2) for a more serious answer).
On Sunday, May 4, 2014, patrick keshishian sids...@boxsoft.com wrote:
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 12:29:59AM -0700, Philip Guenther wrote:
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 12:21 AM, patrick keshishian
sids...@boxsoft.comjavascript:;
wrote:
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 02:38:40AM -0400, Jean-Philippe
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 01:26:18AM -0700, Philip Guenther wrote:
On Sunday, May 4, 2014, patrick keshishian sids...@boxsoft.com wrote:
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 12:29:59AM -0700, Philip Guenther wrote:
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 12:21 AM, patrick keshishian
sids...@boxsoft.comjavascript:;
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 02:38:40AM -0400, Jean-Philippe Ouellet wrote:
Hello,
I've gone through lib/libssl/src/apps with the goal of making {m,c,re}alloc
uses more idiomatic, adding error checking in some places where missing,
and some minor style unification.
Feedback appreciated, better
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 12:17:16PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
We are going to completely ignore diffs which change multiple idioms
at once.
Okay.
That is how mistakes get made.
Yep, more true than I realized.
Here's a simpler one:
Index: apps.c
On 05/04/14 21:50, Jean-Philippe Ouellet wrote:
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 12:17:16PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
We are going to completely ignore diffs which change multiple idioms
at once.
Okay.
That is how mistakes get made.
Yep, more true than I realized.
Here's a simpler one:
Index:
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Alexander Hall alexan...@beard.se wrote:
On 05/04/14 21:50, Jean-Philippe Ouellet wrote:
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 12:17:16PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
We are going to completely ignore diffs which change multiple idioms
at once.
Okay.
That is how
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 11:30:40PM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
NULL theoretically could be != 0
Umm... short of something like:
#undef NULL
#define NULL I'm silly and want to break everything
or something, I don't see when that'd be the case.
According to ISO/IEC 9899:1999 TC3 (n1256)
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 11:12:00AM +1000, Joel Sing wrote:
- i = 0;
if (arg-count == 0) {
arg-count = 20;
- arg-data = (char **)malloc(sizeof(char *) * arg-count);
+ arg-data = calloc(arg-count, sizeof(char *));
}
- for (i = 0; i
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 03:50:06PM -0400, Jean-Philippe Ouellet wrote:
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 12:17:16PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
We are going to completely ignore diffs which change multiple idioms
at once.
Okay.
That is how mistakes get made.
Yep, more true than I realized.
19 matches
Mail list logo
