Thanks Marc. Do you think it makes sense to match the POSIX definition of `realloc`?
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/ I tested it locally and it seems okay. I know that's just one data point. Kind regards Samuel On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 07:01, Marc Lehmann <schm...@schmorp.de> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 11:28:11AM +1300, Samuel Williams < > space.ship.travel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Is there some reason why ev_set_allocator is defined as: > > If I remember correctly, this was because size_t and ssize_t were not very > portable. > > > Because this produces warnings when trying to use `realloc` style > > functions, defined as: > > Well, "relloc style functions" is a rather fuzzy set - if you limit > yourself to realloc functions only, then this is probably a good thing, > as the semantic of a large number of realloc functions is not of the > required type, so you probably need a wrapper in any case to work around > incompatibilities (for example, libev itself uses such a wrapper by > default, called ev_realloc_emul). > > -- > The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content > MORPG > -----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net > ----==-- _ generation > ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann > --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / schm...@schmorp.de > -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ >
_______________________________________________ libev mailing list libev@lists.schmorp.de http://lists.schmorp.de/mailman/listinfo/libev
