"Nigel J. Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> On a matter of style, it's been a while since I've seriously considered cross
> platform C. Is it the done thing to expect:
> int *i = (int *)calloc(1,sizeof(int));
> to give the condition *i == 0 (assuming the memory allocation worked)?
calloc is defined to zero out the block of memory it returns (as opposed
to malloc which may return a block containing any random junk).
A more serious question is whether any of this code should be using
calloc/malloc as opposed to palloc. I'd prefer to see it rewritten to
use palloc wherever possible; but that begs the question of what the
required lifespan of the allocations is.
+ #ifndef NULL
+ #define NULL ((void *)0)
It has been roughly twenty years since a C platform existed that didn't
predefine NULL ... and the ones that did not would likely not recognize
the ANSI-C-ism "void *". So the above is unhelpful by any measure.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Nigel J. Andrews||Date: 2003-09-18 09:35:11|
|Subject: Re: [GENERAL] backend crashing despite tsearch2 patch|
|Previous:||From: Nigel J. Andrews||Date: 2003-09-17 23:03:22|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] backend crashing despite tsearch2 patch|
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-09-18 04:27:20|
|Subject: Re: varchar vs. text |
|Previous:||From: Michael Garriss||Date: 2003-09-18 03:59:44|
|Subject: varchar vs. text|