Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> > I would also prefer passing the bheaph_t** storage to bheap_init, and
> > conserve bheap_destroy (with a callback called with the bheap_t**
> > storage) in case the storage was dynamically allocated by the caller.
> Do you have a concrete usage scenario in mind where this would be
> required? I would rather bet that potential callers of bheap_destroy
> know very well when some buffer is to be released. Looks at bit like
> overkill unless someone has the real need to mix dynamically with
> statically allocated bheaps.
Requesting a bheaph_t ** to be passed to bheap_init is type-safe and
would have caught the kind of mistake you have done. bheap_destroy allow
setting the bheap_t structure to an invalid value which, in turn, allow
helping upper layers in catching invalid uses of the bheap after its
It is a low price to pay to make the interface a bit safer.
Xenomai-core mailing list