Am Donnerstag, 2. November 2006 22:27 schrieb Troman:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Dennis Schridde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "Development list" <>
> >Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 11:50 PM
> >Subject: Re: [Warzone-dev] More patches for warnings
> >Am Mittwoch, 1. November 2006 23:03 schrieb Gerard Krol:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> This evenings work ;)
> >>
> >> new.patch contains the addition of two macro's, and the use of them to
> >> replace MALLOC
> >
> >MALLOC itself is a macro around some custom wrapper around malloc...
> >So perhaps we should also check if we (additionally to using this NEW
> >wrapper)
> >could drop that MALLOC malloc wrapper...
> >(I don't really know what exact functionality MALLOC and FREE provide,
> >besides
> >that FREE checks for NULL pointers, what is useless as free() is defined
> > by the C std to do nothing in that case.)
> >
> >--Dennis
> >
> >PS: Idea seems good, didn't look at the patch.
> It is a cleaner approach, but for me it is more intuitively to use MALLOC
> since already the name implies that malloc functionality will be used at
> some point. And these 2 new macros will not replace all occurances of
> MALLOC, so we are just introducing more macros for the same functionality.
> But anyway, I will be an impartial executor of a collective opinion. To
> make it painless for everyone if no objections will be raised until
> tomorrow evening I will just go on and apply the patch.
Well, then make it MALLOC instead. NEW is also more C++ style...
I'd be ok with it, but it doesn't bring much real benefit, though you could 
even don't use NEW. Also most ppl would probably not use NEW anyway as they 
are used to MALLOC/malloc and that's what's used in most of the code.
You are right YaWM (Yet another Wrapper Macro) is probably not needed and 
would clutter the code even more.

Whatever you decide, it's ok.


Attachment: pgpAvy7uikSis.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Warzone-dev mailing list

Reply via email to