At 00:10 03.01.2003 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
*** PGP Signature Status: goodI think it would be a nice (and usefull!) to have talloc_free() and talloc_realloc_strdup()
*** Signer: Andrew Francis Bartlett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Invalid)
*** Signed: 02.01.2003 14:10:23
*** Verified: 02.01.2003 14:22:37
*** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***
On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 23:51, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
> >This doesn't seem right - why not just free and replace that talloc
> >context?
>
> I only want to free one segment in the talloc context and all other
> talloced memory in this talloc context should not be free'ed!
>
> > > a also add a view talloc_realloc_*() functions
> > >
> > > talloc_realloc_strdup() ...
> >
> >Why?
>
> If we have a struct witch is talloced
> and strings in the struct are talloced on the same talloc context should be
> replaced, it would be fine to free the memory of the old string...:-)
Talloc doesn't work that way, and should not be made to work that way.
If you want that, then you have malloc() and free().
Does anybody else has an opinion on that???
Andrew Bartlett
metze ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stefan "metze" Metzmacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
