On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 4:36 AM, jb <jb.1234abcd_at_gmail.com> wrote: > <dt71 <at> gmx.com> writes: > > > > > So new flags could be [1]: > > - realloc_flags(p, s, REALLOCF_NO_MOVE) > > ... > > - realloc_flags(p, s, REALLOCF_NO_MOVE | REALLOCF_ELASTIC) > > ... > > For this, there could be a REALLOCF_FORCE flag > > In case of realloc_flags() failing the request, to avoid unnecessary > followups with regular realloc() when desired, we should include an option > like REALLOCF_FALLBACK_ANY that would allow to fallback on the regular > realloc() logic, in one call. > > In addition, because I have an impression that realloc_flags() may have > a future as a replacement for regular realloc() and we should aim for it, > we should include an option like REALLOCF_ANY for that purpose. > > So far, the options could be as follows: > - realloc_flags(p, s, option) > where option is one or a combination (where appropriate) of: > REALLOCF_ANY - default (move or no-move; regular > realloc()) > REALLOCF_NO_MOVE - no-move > REALLOCF_ELASTIC - combined with REALLOCF_NO_MOVE > REALLOCF_FORCE - combined with REALLOCF_NO_MOVE > REALLOCF_FALLBACK_ANY - combined with REALLOCF_NO_MOVE or its > derivatives like REALLOCF_ELASTIC, etc > just five ? for a (quote) "clean, safe and maintainable API", I'd probably also add a few more, such as REALLOCF_ALWAYS to trigger bugs on bad assumptions in the code, REALLOCF_I_AM_FEELING_LUCKY for the newbies, and REALLOCF_REAL_PROGRAMMERS_NEVER_DO_THAT_I_WILL_PANIC for skilled folks. I am not sure they are enough to cover the spectrum of possible options, but there are at least 32 bits in the flags so we have a few more left. cheers luigiReceived on Mon Dec 02 2013 - 12:29:09 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:44 UTC