On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 07:41:47AM +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
Log Message:
Stupid sizeof operator!
- tmp_cpath = tor_malloc_zero(sizeof(tmp_cpath));
+ tmp_cpath = tor_malloc_zero(sizeof(crypt_path_t));
Errr ... stupid coder, you mean? You wanted:
tmp_cpath = tor_malloc_zero(sizeof *tmp_cpath);
No, I think sizeof(crypt_path_t) is a fine way to do it. It makes it
clearer to me that we're talking about the size of the struct, not the
size of a pointer or something.
I guess it could be a bother if tmp_cpath changes types, but I don't
think that's much of a problem.
You can do it either way, my point was that the sizeof operator was not
at fault. I prefer the idiom "x=malloc(sizeof *x)" because you never
have to check what x points to. Indeed some people define a NEW macro
like this: