On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:17:43 +0200
Laslo Hunhold <dev_AT_frign.de> wrote:
> As a small fun part, there's also a function g_malloc0_n() just below
> g_malloc_n() which does exactly the same (the code is identical). I
> think they created g_malloc0_n() to be a "safe" interface while
> keeping g_malloc_n() for "performance" reasons, but then later on
> noticed that it might be smart to do the check anyway, having two
> identical functions and bloating the API unnecessarily.
Sorry, I need to correct myself here. I misread the code to be honest,
and g_malloc0_n() is in fact like a "calloc". I hope this can be
forgiven given the nature of the code.
The other points still stand though of course. :)
With best regards
Laslo
--
Laslo Hunhold <dev_AT_frign.de>
Received on Thu Oct 19 2017 - 16:42:11 CEST