Re: gwmem patches

Hi Nikos,

we have at least one +1 so please repost your patch.

Thanks,
Alex

Am 03.04.2009 um 17:37 schrieb Andreas Fink:

> I'm +1 on gw_calloc. There's a few times I would have used it in the  
> past so its nice to have it in gwlib.
>
> I see very little optimisation of strdup except we do a strlen twice  
> (once explicit in the malloc line an done implicity in the strcpy)  
> but it is never bad to save a few microseconds.. (who knows one  
> might call this one a gazillion times...). so +1 for that one too.
>
>
> On 02.04.2009, at 23:21, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> thanks for your patch but:
>>
>> 1) thread.h patch was wrong. I fixed it in CVS.
>> 2) gw_strdup optimisation looks OK, please submit as extra patch
>> 3) gw_calloc, hmm... I don't really see any advantage of this one.  
>> because
>> 	x = gw_malloc(count*size);
>> 	memset(x, 0);
>>     do the same. why do we need this?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex
>>
>> Am 02.04.2009 um 19:09 schrieb Nikos Balkanas:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> An assortment of small patches to make check_memory_leaks work  
>>> better:
>>>
>>> 1) Added support for gw_calloc, which is #undefed but not defined
>>> 2) Replaced strcpy with memcpy in gw_strdup for better efficiency
>>> 3) Added function prototype in thread.h for mutex_make_measured so  
>>> that MUTEX_STATS compile correctly.
>>>
>>> Please decide and vote.
>>>
>>> BR,
>>> Nikos<kannel.diff>
>>
>