On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, George Greer wrote:
> and doesn't take into account any possible architecture optimizations.
I still don't like it. First, I'm doubtful that there's some meaningful
optimization that applies to strdup()'s allocate-and-copy that doesn't
apply to allocation (with calloc()) followed by copying (with strcpy()).
I also think such an optimization, if it exists, is likely unnecessary.
If either one of these premises hold, then I don't think it's worth doing
given that either
(a) It crashes instead of presenting the malloc() error and abort()'ing
or,
(b) It requires another #define, more autoconf code, and half-again the
str_dup() code.
Of course, the big one is (a); (b) is just a minor qualm with code bloat.
-dak
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| FAQ: http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html |
| Archives: http://post.queensu.ca/listserv/wwwarch/circle.html |
| Newbie List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/circle-newbies/ |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 06/25/03 PDT