From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Sep 18 19:58:32 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id TAA27887
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 19:58:32 -0700
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id TAA27880
          ; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 19:58:25 -0700
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id TAA09115; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 19:54:56 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199509190254.TAA09115@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: why is this not a bug in namei?
To: davidg@root.com
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 19:54:56 -0700 (MST)
Cc: terry@lambert.org, kuku@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de,
        julian@freefall.freebsd.org, hackers@freefall.freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199509182321.QAA03724@corbin.Root.COM> from "David Greenman" at Sep 18, 95 04:21:46 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 649       
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> >> Is this just a typo? Shouldn't it be a FREE() macro like below?
> ...
> >The code should still be cleaned up, however.
> >
> >I prefer the macroized version to allow later instrumentation.
> 
>    I prefer the non macroized version. The instrumentation of malloc/free
> belongs in malloc() & free(). Macros are ugly and usually evil. They
> unnecessarily obscure the code.

???

What if I only want to instrument malloc() and free() in one source file?

What if I want to share code with NetBSD and BSDI?


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.