Re: What is your opinion about init_malloc?

On 14/03/2025 16:31, wij wrote:

On Fri, 2025-03-14 at 17:13 +0100, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 14.03.2025 um 16:56 schrieb wij:
>

If it tries to exceed 'High level assembly', it could be ridiculous.
Same as C++, if it tries to be 'not-C'.

>
Thiago wants to mimic construction with new,

 I've been wondering how C would mimic ctor/dtor for long long time,...
 void * init_malloc(size_t size, void * src) looked reasonable, and
may be necessary in 'my assembly model'.

Why not pass it a constructor function as well? Something like:
void * init_malloc(void *src,
                    size_t size,
                    int(*ctor)(void *, const void *))
{
   void *p = malloc(size);
   if(p)
   {
     if(ctor != NULL)
     {
       if((*ctor)(p, src) == CTOR_FAIL)
       {
         free(p);
         p = NULL;
       }
     }
     else
     {
       memcpy(p, src, size);
     }
   }
   return p;
}
This way, you can do a "deep copy" instead of a naive bit blit, and one init_malloc fits all because you just write a new constructor for each type that needs one and pass a NULL constructor when a bit blit suffices.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within