Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758144AbXHBNuF (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Aug 2007 09:50:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755448AbXHBNtz (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Aug 2007 09:49:55 -0400 Received: from mail-gw1.sa.eol.hu ([212.108.200.67]:59998 "EHLO mail-gw1.sa.eol.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755438AbXHBNty (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Aug 2007 09:49:54 -0400 To: jengelh@computergmbh.de CC: miklos@szeredi.hu, adobriyan@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org In-reply-to: (message from Jan Engelhardt on Thu, 2 Aug 2007 15:35:56 +0200 (CEST)) Subject: Re: [PATCH] type safe allocator References: Message-Id: From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:49:20 +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1074 Lines: 28 > >> On Aug 2 2007 16:04, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > >> >On 8/2/07, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > >> >> fooptr = kmalloc(sizeof(struct foo), ...); > >> > > >> >Key word is "traditional". Good traditional form which even half-competent > >> >C programmers immediately parse in retina. > >> > >> And being aware of the potential type-unsafety makes programmers more > >> careful IMHO. > > > >That's a _really_ good reason ;) > > Yes, a good reason not to use g_new(), so people do get bitten when > they are doingitwrong. Should we turn off all warnings then, to make people more careful after constantly being bitten by stupid mistakes? That's one way to think of it, yes. But I think most would agree, that we have better things to do than being careful about things that the compiler can check for us. Miklos - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/