similar to: malloc/calloc/strdup and R's aequivalents

Hi, I have issue with Calloc : at the compilation step, gcc tells "error : syntax error before ')' token". When I use the classical C calloc... free, everything's fine. Here's the part of code : a = (double*) Calloc(*n,sizeof(double)); when i remove this line or replace it with the calloc, it's ok Hint : In the header file R.h, there's a line : /* for PROBLEM

Small optimization, and eases the code. --- daemon/btrfs.c | 10 ++++------ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/daemon/btrfs.c b/daemon/btrfs.c index f02acb1..7b14bac 100644 --- a/daemon/btrfs.c +++ b/daemon/btrfs.c @@ -1723,12 +1723,11 @@ do_btrfs_balance_status (const char *path) nlines = count_strings (lines); - ret = malloc(sizeof *ret); + ret = calloc (1,

Hi all, I have a C code in Linux, it has 7 pointers and compile e run OK, but when I run in R happens problems with calloc function, it returns NULL. ############################################### > int *temp1,*temp2,*temp3,*temp4; temp1 = (int *)calloc(col,sizeof(int)); if(temp1 == NULL){ printf("\n\n No Memory1!"); exit(1); } temp2 = (int *)calloc(col,sizeof(int));

commit 3f4ba2e98d21746723d291939ccc2e1f1526aa6d left some error messages unchanged. Signed-off-by: Chen Hanxiao <chenhanxiao@cn.fujitsu.com> --- daemon/btrfs.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/daemon/btrfs.c b/daemon/btrfs.c index 7b14bac..e8059db 100644 --- a/daemon/btrfs.c +++ b/daemon/btrfs.c @@ -479,7 +479,7 @@ do_btrfs_subvolume_list (const

Reordering calloc arguments silences gcc compiler warnings of latest versions. Spotted with OpenSSH-portable on a Linux system. Okay? Index: cipher.c =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/ssh/cipher.c,v diff -u -p -u -p -r1.121 cipher.c --- cipher.c 17 May 2024 02:39:11 -0000 1.121 +++ cipher.c 13 Aug 2024 16:46:00 -0000 @@ -249,7 +249,7

Hi All, While debugging: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008089 I made a apitrace recording of the a single slide transition animation, and since I suspected memory corruption replayed it using ElectrFence + glretrace, this finds a 0 sized array allocation at src/mesa/state_tracker/st_glsl_to_tgsi.cpp: 5565: if (proginfo->Parameters) { t->constants = (struct

Hi, On 27-08-15 15:46, Marek Olšák wrote: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede at redhat.com> wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> While debugging: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008089 >> >> I made a apitrace recording of the a single slide transition >> animation, and since I suspected memory corruption replayed >> it

Hi, it looks like a few users of calloc had their arguments backwards. I checked the other users and they seem fine. Since one of those is in ioemu code, does that mean we (I?) will be submitting that bug to qemu upstream? -- Hollis Blanchard IBM Linux Technology Center Fix swapped calloc() arguments. Signed-off-by: Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@us.ibm.com> diff -r c4eead8a925b

[sending this to R-devel, since it may be of general interest and could possibly lead to better instructions in the "R-exts" manual] Is this another case where only .Call() or .External() [or a fudge factor] solve my problem? Following situation: I use dyn.loaded C code to compute a recursive tree structure from my data. Beforehand I don't know how big the tree will

Hi Rich, There's an unchecked calloc in hivex.c's hive_open: h->bitmap = calloc (1 + h->size / 32, 1); ... This subsequent deref could cause a segfault: BITMAP_SET (h->bitmap, blkoff);

I'm running R 2.10.0 under Mac OS X 10.5.8; however, I don't think this is a Mac-specific problem. I have a very large (158,908 possible sentences, ca. 58 MB) plain text document d which I am trying to tokenize: t <- strapply(d, "\\w+", perl = T). I am encountering the following error: Error in base::gsub(pattern, rs, x, ...) : Calloc could not allocate (-1398215180 of

I am trying to write a C function to create a vector of integers that can be used by the R calling function. I do not know the size of the vector in the R calling function. (Well, actually, I have an upper limit on the size, but that is so large that R cannot allocate it. What I'm doing in the function is to do a sieving procedure, and the result will be small enough to fit into my

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Alex Deucher <alexdeucher at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede at redhat.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 27-08-15 15:46, Marek Olšák wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede at redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>>>

On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 02:43:03PM +0200, Michael Kruse via llvm-dev wrote: > 2016-10-03 13:55 GMT+02:00 Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > > I am trying to implement some new alignment based optimisations in our > > target backend, and I am wondering if there a way a target can specify that > > ‘malloc’, ‘realloc’ and ‘calloc’

I am trying to implement some new alignment based optimisations in our target backend, and I am wondering if there a way a target can specify that 'malloc', 'realloc' and 'calloc' always return a pointer to memory that is aligned to a particular boundary? Related too, is it possible to specify that the stack pointer always points to memory which is aligned to a

On Jan 11, 2009, at 11:22 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: >>> There is no good reason for malloc to be an instruction anymore. >>> I'd >>> be very happy if it got removed. Even if we keep it, malloc/alloca >>> should be extended to optionally take 64-bit sizes. >> >> I'm curious. Do we want to keep the free instruction? > > No,

Hi, When looking into the bug in https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=21421, I found a regression test in Transforms/InstCombine/malloc-free-delete.ll against me to directly fix it. The test is, define i1 @foo() { ; CHECK-LABEL: @foo( ; CHECK-NEXT: ret i1 false %m = call i8* @malloc(i32 1) %z = icmp eq i8* %m, null call void @free(i8* %m) ret i1 %z } According to

On Jan 12, 2009, at 8:24 AM, Dan Gohman wrote: > > On Jan 11, 2009, at 11:22 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > >>>> There is no good reason for malloc to be an instruction anymore. >>>> I'd >>>> be very happy if it got removed. Even if we keep it, malloc/alloca >>>> should be extended to optionally take 64-bit sizes. >>> >>>

Hi, > On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 09:05 +0200, Peter J. Philipp wrote: >> You don't check for malloc failure. I've made a patch that is possibly >> wrong but it saves the program from SIGSEGV and replaces it with SIGABRT. On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Philipp Schafft wrote: > But I have a question: > Not all of them (only had a brief look at the patch) look to be in a >

> I think we can do such optimization with operator new, because new never returns null. This is incorrect in the case of `new (std::nothrow) ...` - the whole point of `(std::nothrow)` is to tell new that it should return NULL in case of failure, rather than throw an exception (bad_alloc). But the point here is not the actual return value, but the fact that the compiler misses that the