From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Nigel J(dot) Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk> |
Cc: | psql-mail(at)freeuk(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] backend crashing despite tsearch2 patch |
Date: | 2003-09-18 04:21:40 |
Message-ID: | 8432.1063858900@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-patches |
"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)
+ #endif
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-18 04:27:20 | Re: varchar vs. text |
Previous Message | Michael Garriss | 2003-09-18 03:59:44 | varchar vs. text |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nigel J. Andrews | 2003-09-18 09:35:11 | Re: [GENERAL] backend crashing despite tsearch2 patch |
Previous Message | Nigel J. Andrews | 2003-09-17 23:03:22 | Re: [PATCHES] backend crashing despite tsearch2 patch |