On 08/10/15 22:24, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 10/08/15 21:35, Thomas Huth wrote: >> Change a g_malloc0 into g_malloc since the following >> memset fills the whole buffer anyway. >> >> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> >> --- >> tests/i440fx-test.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/tests/i440fx-test.c b/tests/i440fx-test.c >> index d0bc8de..7fa1709 100644 >> --- a/tests/i440fx-test.c >> +++ b/tests/i440fx-test.c >> @@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ static void write_area(uint32_t start, uint32_t end, >> uint8_t value) >> uint32_t size = end - start + 1; >> uint8_t *data; >> >> - data = g_malloc0(size); >> + data = g_malloc(size); >> memset(data, value, size); >> memwrite(start, data, size); >> >> > > Technically you are right of course, but I remember some historical mess > around this, in this file. > > Plus I vaguely recall g_new[0]() being the most recent preference. > > https://developer.gnome.org/glib/stable/glib-Memory-Allocation.html#g-new > > See e.g. commit 97f3ad3551. Markus?
g_new IMHO only makes sense when you try to allocate the memory for a struct or something similar - for allocating byte arrays, g_malloc is the better choice. So I think this patch should be fine. Thomas
