[PATCH 1/2] add calloc and callocBytes to Foreign.Marshal.Alloc
pumpkingod at gmail.com
Fri Apr 22 21:05:48 CEST 2011
calloc is just a multiplication followed by malloc followed by memset. Is it
really worth creating a new binding for that? It always seemed like a bit of
a silly API to me to begin with.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Jason Dagit <dagitj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Ian Lynagh <igloo at earth.li> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 07:20:55AM -0700, Jason Dagit wrote:
>> > That wiki page doesn't say how long the discussion period should be or
>> > advice on how to determine the size. What would you recommend for this
>> > patch?
>> I just updated the page to recommend 2 weeks, which I think is the
>> status quo.
>> > So it sounds like the things I missed were:
>> > * putting "Proposal:" in the subject line
>> > * setting a discussion period
>> > * attaching my patch to the trac instance (can I send a pull request
>> > github instead?)
>> You don't need to make a trac ticket for it until the proposal has been
> Right, I did understand that.
>> Anything that means we see that the patch needs to be applied is OK.
>> Currently pull requests don't get sent to the mailing list though, and
>> there doesn't seem to be an easy way to set that up.
> Good to know.
>> I also didn't notice a rationale for the change. The type signatures
>> looked the same as for the malloc functions, so I don't know what the
>> difference is.
> The difference is that calloc will initialize the allocated memory to
> zeros. Some C libraries assume this, at least freetype2 does, and since I
> want to use that library from Haskell I needed a binding to calloc. I
> assume others will run into this need eventually as well. When I send a
> "proposal:..." email, hopefully this weekend, I'll definitely make the
> rationale clear.
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Libraries