From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Sep 18 23:06:00 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id XAA09735
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 23:06:00 -0700
Received: from Root.COM (implode.Root.COM [198.145.90.17])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id XAA09728
          for <hackers@freefall.freebsd.org>; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 23:05:57 -0700
Received: from corbin.Root.COM (corbin [198.145.90.34]) by Root.COM (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id XAA19553; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 23:04:43 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by corbin.Root.COM (8.6.12/8.6.5) with SMTP id XAA03876; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 23:07:03 -0700
Message-Id: <199509190607.XAA03876@corbin.Root.COM>
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
cc: hackers@freefall.freebsd.org
Subject: Re: why is this not a bug in namei? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 18 Sep 95 19:54:56 PDT."
             <199509190254.TAA09115@phaeton.artisoft.com> 
From: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM>
Reply-To: davidg@Root.COM
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 23:07:03 -0700
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?

   That's a silly argument. The namespace will already be messed up with the
global macros - I'd hardly call that an "improvement".

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

   Then you've got far worse problems than a few macros.

-DG