Re: [PATCH 2/7] regedit: Use a helper function to allocate memory and check for a valid pointer

[Alexandre Julliard]

Hugh McMaster <hugh.mcmaster(a)outlook.com> writes:
> +static void *heap_alloc(size_t size)
> +{
> +    void *buf;
> +
> +    if (!(buf = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0, size)))
> +    {
> +        ERR("Out of memory!\n");
> +        exit(1);
> +    }
> +
> +    return buf;
> +}

That's not the standard heap_alloc(), so a different name would be
preferable. I'd suggest heap_xalloc by analogy with xmalloc.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org

[PATCH 2/7] regedit: Use a helper function to allocate memory and check for a valid pointer

[Hugh McMaster]

On Thursday, 27 July 2017 2:41 AM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> That's not the standard heap_alloc(), so a different name would be
> preferable. I'd suggest heap_xalloc by analogy with xmalloc.

"Standard" would be a function just returning HeapAlloc(...), right?

And you did mention the 'x' prefix a few days ago. Totally missed that
in the patch.

By the way, regedit should exit(0), but perhaps exit(1) - as in the patch -
is still more appropriate for allocation failure?

Thanks for the help.

[PATCH 2/7] regedit: Use a helper function to allocate memory and check for a valid pointer

[Alexandre Julliard]

Hugh McMaster <hugh.mcmaster(a)outlook.com> writes:
> On Thursday, 27 July 2017 2:41 AM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> > That's not the standard heap_alloc(), so a different name would be
> > preferable. I'd suggest heap_xalloc by analogy with xmalloc.
>
> "Standard" would be a function just returning HeapAlloc(...), right?

Yes, the one that we use in many places, and that Michael is going to
move to a global header any day now ;-)
> By the way, regedit should exit(0), but perhaps exit(1) - as in the patch -
> is still more appropriate for allocation failure?

Sure.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org