_mp_alloc vs ALLOC

Niels Möller nisse at lysator.liu.se
Fri Jun 1 09:13:40 CEST 2012

bodrato at mail.dm.unipi.it writes:

> I know there are other arguments, we might discuss about a possible change
> in the memory interface. The points I see:
> - should we ask for a fourth function (alloc, free, conservative_realloc,
> nonconservative_realloc)?

Maybe. If anyone has the time for that, I guess it would be a good time
to discuss libc suppport for a corresponding primitive with the glibc
people (apparantly, development is getting a bit more open and Ulrich
Drepper is taking a less active rôle, https://lwn.net/Articles/488847/).

One could also reduce the number of functions, using that

  malloc(size) = realloc(NULL, size)
  free(p) = realloc(p, 0);

> - should we keep the old_size parameter in the interface?

I definitely think we shouldn't. The difficult question is which path
through deprecation/removal we should take.

> - should we change the order of parameters?

Makes some sense, if and only if we're going to do other incompatible


Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26.
Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance.

More information about the gmp-devel mailing list