Dear Reinhard Meyer, In message <[email protected]> you wrote: > > > And why exactly does calloc() not fit? > > It has two parameters... Produces more code to always supply an > extra "1"...
Ah. > But for malloc() in such driver init situations, another code saving > function with error message would be more effective. I don't see any Would it? You still need to check the return code of the allocation function then, because you want to breeak out of the caller. > possible way of continuing u-boot when malloc() for a relatively small > structure already fails, and a (apparently) needed driver cannot be > initialized. Maybe, maybe not. As mentioned before: network access may not be so important at all. > I am not talking about malloc()'s for buffers or similar where continuing > of u-boot might be possible. Continuing U-Boot without network access is also possible. If someone pulls the cable you also continue, or don't you? Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: [email protected] "Pardon me for breathing, which I never do anyway so I don't know why I bother to say it, oh God, I'm so depressed. Here's another of those self-satisfied doors. Life! Don't talk to me about life." - Marvin the Paranoid Android _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
