Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!mimsy!eneevax!umd5!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,news.software.b
Subject: Re: passing NULL to functions
Message-ID: <5803@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 27-Apr-87 17:43:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.5803
Posted: Mon Apr 27 17:43:29 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 29-Apr-87 01:13:52 EDT
References: <150@sds.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 12
Xref: utgpu comp.lang.c:1866 news.software.b:537

In article <150@sds.UUCP> dave@sds.UUCP (dave schmidt x194) writes:
>#define NIL(type)	((type)NULL)
>#define	ALLOC(type, qty)	((type *)calloc((qty), sizeof(type)))

These are good; they explicitly address the important issue that the
data type is an important factor.  However, I would use malloc() rather
than calloc().  It isn't clear what calloc()'s auto-filling with 0 should
do; my interpretation is that it should fill with 0 "bytes" (usually the
same as 0-valued (char)s), but that's not necessarily going to make any
sense for floating-point or pointer data.  It also adds overhead when one
does one's own initialization of the allocated thingy.  I think calloc()
should be gotten rid of.