On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Tim Potter wrote: > Isn't this going to cause horrible problems if you pass in a a piece of > memory that has already been allocated by talloc? It looks like you > must pass in memory allocated my mallloc() unless you want to have a > double free happening sometime later. This will be very difficult to > debug. > > > it would be useful to add allocated strings returned from another > > function to a talloc context ... the only problem I see is the size one. > > Why not just use a talloc context for these allocated strings in the > first place?
I agree with Tim on this one. I think it is much more intuitive to keep talloc'd and malloc'd memory separate. I see many possibilities for hard to debug code in this. In particular if someone tries to migrate currently malloc'd memory using this. Not meaning to be rude, but this seems a little lazy. If one wants it talloc'd memory, one should take the effort to ensure that a valid talloc context is available. Please don't check this change in. cheers, jerry --------------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard http://www.hp.com SAMBA Team http://www.samba.org -- http://www.plainjoe.org "Sam's Teach Yourself Samba in 24 Hours" 2ed. ISBN 0-672-32269-2 --"I never saved anything for the swim back." Ethan Hawk in Gattaca--
