Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 10:04:16 -0800 From: Jason Evans <jasone@FreeBSD.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Proposed addition of malloc_size_np() Message-ID: <4426D7A0.4040007@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20060326110929.V35431@fledge.watson.org> References: <44247DF1.8000002@FreeBSD.org> <200603250806.k2P86YJU011861@apollo.backplane.com> <4424FDE9.3080707@FreeBSD.org> <20060325185612.GC7001@funkthat.com> <442595E2.5080804@FreeBSD.org> <20060326110929.V35431@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Robert Watson wrote: > I wonder if the intuitive objection people are raising is actually with > the name. Since malloc_size() is defined on at least one platform to > return the requested size, maybe a name like malloc_allocated_size() (or > something a bit more compact) would help avoid that confusion, and make > it clear that the consumer is getting back a commitment and not a hint > for future realloc(), etc. Maybe you're right. We could just call it malloc_usable_size() and be compatible with Linux. Jason
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4426D7A0.4040007>