_mp_alloc vs ALLOC

[Marc Glisse]

On Sat, 9 Jun 2012, bodrato at mail.dm.unipi.it wrote:

>> Won't valgrind complain about an uninitialized read here?
>
> It shouldn't! I read from the manual of Valgrind:
> http://valgrind.org/docs/manual/mc-manual.html#mc-manual.uninitvals
>
> "It is important to understand that your program can copy around junk
> (uninitialised) data as much as it likes. [...] A complaint is issued only
> when your program attempts to make use of uninitialised data in a way that
> might affect your program's externally-visible behaviour."
>
> So, if the value is correctly overwritten before using it, Valgrind should
> not complain.

Cool, I did not know that, thanks!

> I inserted the line for testing purposes, but it obviously is useless, it
> can be removed!

No, no, looks good :-)

>> I think mpz_neg is a candidate for MPZ_NEWALLOC.
>
> I think there are many, because the macro destroys the content only if a
> memory enlargement is needed. E.g. mpz/tdiv_?_2exp.c are candidate for
> _NEWALLOC, because no reallocation (i.e. no data loose) happen when source
> and destination operands coincide.

Good. I wanted to make sure before adding some (not that that will happen 
anytime soon...).

-- 
Marc Glisse